[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 24 (Monday, February 5, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 7660-7681]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-01952]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 679

[Docket No. 240126-0024]
RIN 0648-BM40


Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Amendment 
126 to the Fishery Management Plans for Groundfish of the Bering Sea 
and Aleutian Islands Management Area and Amendment 114 to the Fishery 
Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska To Expand 
Electronic Monitoring To the Pollock Fisheries

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) 
submitted Amendment 126 to the Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for 
Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area 
(BSAI) and Amendment 114 to the FMP for Groundfish of the Gulf of 
Alaska (GOA). If approved, Amendments 126/114 would implement an 
electronic monitoring (EM) program for pelagic trawl pollock catcher 
vessels and tender vessels delivering to shoreside processors and 
stationary floating processors in the Bering Sea (BS), Aleutian Islands 
(AI), and GOA. This proposed rule is intended to promote the goals and 
objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management 
Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), Amendments 126/114, the BSAI FMP, and the 
GOA FMP.

DATES: Comments must be received no later than April 5, 2024.
    Public Meetings:
    1. February 28, 2024, 6 p.m. Alaska local time, Kodiak, AK.
    2. March 12, 2024, 6 p.m. Pacific time, Virtual (see ADDRESSES for 
link).

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on this document, identified by 
NOAA-NMFS-2023-0125, by any of the following methods:
     Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public 
comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to https://www.regulations.gov and type NOAA-NMFS-2023-0125 in the Search box 
(note: copying and pasting the FDMS Docket Number directly from this 
document may not yield search results). Click on the ``Comment'' icon, 
complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
     Mail: Submit written comments to Gretchen Harrington, 
Assistant Regional Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, 
Alaska Region NMFS. Mail comments to P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802-
1668.
    Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other 
address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, 
may not be considered by NMFS. All comments received are a part of the 
public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on 
https://www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying 
information (e.g., name, address, etc.), confidential business 
information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily 
by the sender will be publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous 
comments (enter ``N/A'' in the required fields if you wish to remain 
anonymous).
    Electronic copies of Amendment 126 to the BSAI FMP and Amendment 
114 to the GOA FMP (collectively, the FMPs), the Environmental 
Assessment/Regulatory Impact Review prepared for this action (the 
analysis), and the Finding of No Significant Impact prepared for this 
action may be obtained from https://www.regulations.gov and the NMFS 
Alaska Region website at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/region/alaska.
    Per section 313 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, NMFS will also be 
conducting public hearings to accept oral and written comments on the 
proposed rule during the public comment period. The first public 
hearing will be held at the Kodiak Fisheries Research Center, 301 
Research Court, Kodiak, Alaska 99615. The second public hearing will be 
held virtually, available at https://meet.google.com/gcz-emgh-kkw.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joel Kraski, 907-586-7228, 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for Action

    NMFS manages the groundfish fisheries in the exclusive economic 
zone under the FMPs. The Council prepared the FMPs under the authority 
of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. Regulations 
governing U.S. fisheries and implementing the FMPs appear at 50 CFR 
parts 600 and 679.
    This proposed rule would implement Amendments 126/114 to the FMPs. 
The Council submitted Amendments 126/114 for review by the Secretary of 
Commerce, and a Notice of Availability of these amendments was 
published in the Federal Register on January 22, 2024, with comments 
invited through March 22, 2024 (88 FR 3902).
    This proposed rule and Amendments 126/114 amend the Council's 
fisheries research plan prepared under the authority of section 313 of 
the Magnuson-Stevens Act. NMFS published regulations implementing the 
plan on November 21, 2012 (77 FR 70062) and integrated EM into the plan 
on August 8, 2017 (82 FR 36991). The Secretary implements the fisheries 
research plan through the North Pacific Observer Program (Observer 
Program). Its purpose is to establish a research plan for the 
collection of data necessary for the conservation, management, and 
scientific understanding of the

[[Page 7661]]

groundfish and halibut fisheries off Alaska.
    Section 313 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires NMFS to provide a 
60-day public comment period on the proposed rule and conduct a public 
hearing in each state represented on the Council for the purpose of 
receiving public comment on the proposed regulations. The states 
represented on the Council are Alaska, Oregon, and Washington. NMFS 
will conduct a public hearing at a physical location in Alaska and a 
virtual public hearing will be held for Oregon and Washington (see 
DATES).
    People wanting to make an oral statement for the record at a public 
hearing are encouraged to submit a written copy of their statement to 
NMFS using one of the methods identified under ADDRESSES. If attendance 
at the public hearing is large, the time allotted for individual oral 
statements may be limited. Oral and written statements receive equal 
consideration. There are no limits on the length of written comments 
submitted to NMFS. Respondents do not need to submit the same comments 
on Amendments 126/114 and the proposed rule. All relevant written 
comments received by the end of the applicable comment period, whether 
specifically directed to the FMP amendments or this proposed rule, will 
be considered by NMFS in the approval/disapproval decision for 
Amendments 126/114 and addressed in the response to comments in the 
final decision. Comments received after the end of the comment period 
may not be considered in the approval/disapproval decision on Amendment 
126/114. To be certain of consideration, comments would need to be 
received, not just postmarked or otherwise transmitted, by the last day 
of the comment period (see DATES).

North Pacific Observer Program

    The Observer Program is an integral component in the management of 
North Pacific fisheries. The Observer Program was created with the 
implementation of the Magnuson-Stevens Act in the mid-1970s and has 
evolved from primarily observing foreign fleets to observing domestic 
fleets. The Observer Program provides the regulatory framework for 
NMFS-certified observers (observers) and EM systems to be deployed on 
board vessels to obtain information necessary for the conservation and 
management of the groundfish and halibut fisheries.
    The information collected by observers and EM systems is entered 
into databases and then is used to manage the fisheries in furtherance 
of the purposes and national standards of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. 
Observers and EM systems collect fishery-dependent information used to 
estimate total catch and interactions with protected species. Managers 
use these data to manage groundfish and prohibited species catch (PSC) 
within established limits and to document and reduce fishery 
interactions with protected species. Scientists use fishery-dependent 
data to assess fish stocks, provide data for fisheries and ecosystem 
research and fishing fleet behavior, assess marine mammal and seabird 
interactions with fishing gear, and characterize fishing impacts on 
habitat.
    In 2013, the Council and NMFS restructured the Observer Program to 
address long-standing concerns about statistical bias of observer-
collected data and cost inequity among fishery participants with the 
funding and deployment structure under the previous Observer Program 
(77 FR 70062, November 21, 2012). The restructured Observer Program 
established two observer coverage categories: partial and full. All 
groundfish and halibut vessels and processors are included in one of 
these two categories. NMFS requires fishing sectors in the full 
coverage category to have all operations observed. The full coverage 
category is specified at 50 CFR 679.51(a)(2) and includes most catcher/
processors, all motherships, and those catcher vessels participating in 
a catch share program with a transferrable PSC limit. Owners of vessels 
and processors in the full coverage category arrange and pay for 
required observer coverage from a permitted observer provider. The 
shoreside processors and stationary floating processors in the full 
coverage category are currently required to maintain observer coverage.
    The partial coverage category is described at Sec.  679.51(a)(1) 
and includes fishing sectors (vessels and processors) that are not 
required to have an observer at all times. The partial coverage 
category includes catcher vessels, shoreside processors, and stationary 
floating processors when they are not participating in a catch share 
program with a transferrable PSC limit. Small catcher/processors that 
meet criteria in Sec.  679.51(a)(3) may request to be in the partial 
coverage category.
    In the partial coverage category, NMFS contracts with an observer 
provider and EM providers and determines when and where observers and 
EM systems are deployed, based on a scientific sampling design. Each 
year, NMFS develops an Annual Deployment Plan (ADP) that describes how 
NMFS plans to deploy observers and EM systems to vessels and processors 
in the partial coverage category in the upcoming year. The ADP also 
specifies the scientific sampling design NMFS uses to generate 
estimates of total and retained catch and catch composition in the 
groundfish and halibut fisheries. The ADP process provides flexibility 
to improve deployment to meet scientifically based estimation needs 
while accommodating the realities of dynamic fiscal and harvesting 
environments. NMFS's goal is to achieve a representative sample of 
fishing events and to do this without exceeding funds collected through 
the observer fee. This is accomplished by the random selection of trips 
for deployment of observers, placement of EM systems, and shoreside 
sampling in the partial coverage category. NMFS adjusts the ADP after 
conducting a scientific evaluation of data collected under the Observer 
Program to assess the impact of changes in observer and EM deployment 
and improvements in data collection methods necessary to conserve and 
manage the groundfish and halibut fisheries.
    To summarize the ADP process, each fall, NMFS develops a draft ADP 
for the next fishing year that describes how NMFS plans to deploy 
observers and EM systems to vessels in the partial coverage category. 
The draft ADP describes the deployment methods NMFS plans to use to 
collect EM data on discarded and retained catch, including the 
information used to estimate catch composition and marine mammal and 
seabird interactions in the groundfish and halibut fisheries. The draft 
ADP also describes how NMFS would deploy observers to shoreside 
processors in the partial coverage category. In October, the Council 
reviews the draft ADP and considers public comment when developing its 
recommendations about the draft ADP. The Council may recommend 
adjustments to observer and EM deployment to prioritize data collection 
based on conservation and management needs. After NMFS conducts a 
scientific evaluation and considers operational issues of the Council's 
recommendations, NMFS adjusts the draft ADP as appropriate and 
finalizes the ADP in December for release prior to the start of the 
fishing year. NMFS posts the ADP on the NMFS Alaska Region website.
    NMFS conducts its scientific evaluation of data collected under the 
Observer Program in an Annual Report that evaluates how well various 
aspects of the program are achieving program goals, identifies areas 
where improvements are needed, and includes preliminary recommendations 
regarding

[[Page 7662]]

the upcoming ADP. The Council and its Scientific and Statistical 
Committee review the Annual Report in June. This timing allows NMFS and 
the Council to consider the results of past performance in developing 
the ADP for the following year. NMFS posts the Annual Report on the 
NMFS Alaska Region website.
    The Observer Declare and Deploy System (ODDS) is a web application 
that provides information about observer and EM deployment on catcher 
vessels in the partial coverage category. ODDS facilitates 
communication among the operator of a catcher vessel in the partial 
coverage category, NMFS, NMFS's contracted observer provider, and NMFS-
approved EM providers. Operators of catcher vessels in the partial 
coverage category enter information about upcoming fishing trips into 
ODDS and receive information about whether a trip has been selected for 
observer or EM coverage.
    The restructured Observer Program established a system of fees that 
is used to pay for the cost of implementing observer and EM coverage in 
the partial coverage category. As specified at Sec.  679.55, catcher 
vessels and processors included in the partial coverage category pay a 
fee of 1.65 percent of the ex-vessel value of fishery landings to NMFS 
to fund the deployment of observers in the partial coverage category. 
Under section 313 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the fees shall not 
exceed 2 percent of the fishery ex-vessel value.

Integrating Electronic Monitoring Into the Observer Program

    Since the restructuring of the Observer Program, the Council and 
NMFS have been actively engaged in developing EM, a system using 
cameras, video storage devices, and associated sensors to record and 
monitor fishing activities, as a tool to collect fishery data. The 
restructured Observer Program expanded the types of vessels required to 
carry observers to include nontrawl vessels that had not previously 
been subject to observer requirements. Even before implementing the 
restructured Observer Program, many nontrawl vessel owners and 
operators new to the Observer Program opposed carrying an observer. 
Nontrawl vessel owners and operators explained that there was limited 
space on their vessels for an additional person and limited space in 
the vessel's life raft. Some vessel owners, operators, and industry 
representatives advocated for the use of EM instead of having an 
observer on board their smaller nontrawl vessels. To address their 
concerns, the Council and NMFS developed EM as a tool to collect 
fishery data in the nontrawl fisheries.
    In 2014, the Council appointed the EM Workgroup to develop an EM 
program for nontrawl vessels--that is, those vessels using jig, pot, 
and longline gear--and integrate EM into the Observer Program. The EM 
Workgroup provided a forum for stakeholders, including the commercial 
fishery participants, NMFS, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, and EM 
service providers, to cooperatively and collaboratively design, test, 
and develop EM systems and to identify key decision points related to 
operationalizing and integrating EM systems into the Observer Program 
in a strategic manner.
    Starting in 2015, NMFS developed with Council input the Electronic 
Technologies Implementation Plan for the Alaska Region to guide 
integration of monitoring technologies, including EM, into North 
Pacific fisheries management and provide goals and benchmarks to 
evaluate attainment of those goals (Plan and updates are available at 
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/fisheries-observers/electronic-technologies-implementation-plans). This plan was completed in 2021.
    The EM Workgroup developed a collaborative research program to 
inform evaluation of multiple EM program design options and consider 
various EM integration approaches to achieve management needs 
identified in the Electronic Technologies Implementation Plan. Through 
the use of an exempted fishing permit (EFP), the research model 
resulted in the testing of, and subsequent implementation of EM for 
nontrawl vessels in the partial coverage category pursuant to Amendment 
114 to the BSAI FMP and Amendment 104 to the GOA FMP (82 FR 36991, 
August 8, 2017).
    In February 2018, after the implementation of EM on nontrawl 
catcher vessels, the Council directed its EM Workgroup to focus on 
developing EM as a tool for meeting monitoring objectives on trawl 
catcher vessels in the BS, AI, and GOA pelagic pollock fisheries, 
reconstituting the committee as the Trawl EM Committee. In April 2018, 
the Trawl EM Committee was modified to include industry 
representatives, fishery participants, and other stakeholders in the 
catcher vessel pelagic trawl pollock fisheries along with NMFS and EM 
service providers. The Council adopted three monitoring objectives 
proposed by the Trawl EM Committee after its May 2018 meeting: (1) 
improve salmon accounting; (2) reduce monitoring costs; and (3) improve 
the quality of monitoring data. A fourth objective was added by the 
Trawl EM Committee at their meeting in August 2018: (4) modify current 
retention and/or discard requirements as necessary to achieve 
objectives 1-3. While EM development for pelagic trawl catcher vessels 
was not identical to that for nontrawl, the Trawl EM Committee relied 
on the collaborative lessons learned, including creating a workgroup/
committee, creating a research plan, pre-implementation testing of EM, 
and developing regulations.
    The development of the trawl EM category has evolved through pilot 
projects in 2018 and 2019 and under EFP 2019-03 from 2020 through 2024. 
Each phase of program development benefitted from a collaborative 
process and open communication between project partners, which includes 
NMFS, EFP permit holders, EM service providers, video reviewers, and 
observer providers. Lessons learned through this process were 
incorporated into the development of the trawl EM category proposed in 
this action.
    In the 2018 and 2019 pilot projects, prior to applying for an EFP, 
the pollock trawl fishery voluntarily operated video cameras on a 
subset of catcher vessels to test EM systems, while maintaining 
observer coverage. The trawl EM category developed further through EFP 
2019-03, which involved multiple phases as part of a research plan 
developed by the Trawl EM Committee.
    The Trawl EM Committee guided the research plan and EFP 
modifications and identified that there was adequate information on the 
use of EM to collect data for management purposes. The Council and its 
monitoring committees were kept informed of industry-led pilot projects 
through regular updates such as in December 2018 as part of the Trawl 
EM 2019 Cooperative Research Plan and in a March 2019 update to the 
Cooperative Research Plan. Results from pilot projects comparing 
discard estimates by EM reviewers and on-board observers were presented 
to the Trawl EM Committee in August 2019. Results identified that, 
while further refinement was needed, EM was able to capture discard 
activity onboard pelagic trawl pollock catcher vessels. NMFS approved 
EFP 2019-03 in 2020 and renewed modified versions of the EFP for 
fishing conducted in 2021 through 2024. EFPs in Alaska can be viewed on 
the NMFS Alaska Region website.
    Observers played a key role in the collaborative process, providing 
real time feedback via inseason messaging and post deployment surveys. 
The information that observers provided helped the project partners 
make

[[Page 7663]]

decisions impacting communication and data quality through the project. 
Regularly scheduled check-in meetings between NMFS and project partners 
played an integral role during the EFP and began on January 15, 2020, 
and occurred every two weeks during the directed pollock seasons and as 
requested by the project partners. Check-in meetings provided an 
opportunity for each project partner to give updates on how operations 
under the EFP were progressing and identify any issues or concerns. 
NMFS has made a collaborative effort to make this situation work under 
unique circumstances, including staffing issues, quarantine challenges, 
and equipment shortages.
    Several years of EFP data has shown that the objectives for trawl 
EM were met by: (1) improved salmon bycatch accounting, specifically in 
the western GOA pollock fishery that currently relies on estimates with 
large variances under status quo methods; (2) reduced monitoring costs; 
(3) improved quality of monitoring data; and (4) improved retention 
with limited changes in catcher vessel activities. In addition, it was 
also clear that EM is effective in capturing at-sea discard events to 
support catch accounting and may capture marine mammal incidents. 
Finally, EFP data showed some biological sampling can be accomplished 
at processing plants by observers with effective communication from 
vessels and processors.
    The Council and NMFS developed this proposed action based on input 
received from the Trawl EM Committee, three years of data gathered 
through the EFP process, and public input through the Council process. 
This proposed action would provide an option for participants in the 
partial and full coverage categories using pelagic trawl gear to 
directed fish for pollock, as well as tender vessels delivering pollock 
to shoreside processors or stationary floating processors to choose to 
be in the trawl EM category.
    Other trawl fisheries operate differently, have different 
monitoring and compliance requirements, and would require a lengthy 
development process prior to being able to have a functioning EM 
program. EM programs must be designed for the unique characteristics of 
each fishery or group of similar fisheries (such as the nontrawl 
fisheries and the pollock trawl fisheries). The Council and NMFS first 
prioritized nontrawl EM and then pollock trawl EM. The next priority 
that is under development is EM for vessels participating in the 
Rockfish Program, which will require a separate rulemaking if the 
Council recommends EM for that Program.

Objectives of and Rationale for Amendments 126/114 and This Proposed 
Rule

    In October 2022, the Council recommended Amendment 126 to the BSAI 
FMP and Amendment 114 to the GOA FMP. The FMP amendments and this 
proposed rule would implement EM for catcher vessels targeting pollock 
with pelagic trawl gear in the BS, AI, or GOA fisheries (hereinafter 
``catcher vessels'' or ``CVs'') and tender vessels delivering pollock 
to shoreside processors or stationary floating processors in the BS, 
AI, and GOA.
    The Council and NMFS developed EM for the pelagic trawl gear 
pollock fisheries to explore an alternative way to collect fisheries 
data given the unique operating requirements in these fisheries. The 
pollock trawl fisheries have low rates of incidental catch of non-
pollock species, leading to the ability to improve the retention of all 
catch, thus allowing for collection of biological data from unsorted 
catch at processors. Improved retention of catch means the vessel is 
operated in such a way that catch is retained to the greatest extent 
practicable. Under this proposed rule, EM systems would collect at-sea 
data for NMFS to determine if discards at sea occurred and subsequent 
video review would verify vessel discard estimates for accuracy. The 
use of EM on vessels in the trawl EM category would allow for 
monitoring of compliance with Federal regulations and catch handling 
requirements. The implementation of EM has the potential to reduce 
economic and operational costs associated with deploying observers on 
catcher vessels. Through the use of EM, it may continue to be feasible 
to obtain fishery-dependent data from catcher vessels, improve data 
quality, and increase NMFS's and the Council's flexibility to respond 
to the scientific and management needs of these fisheries. The 
Council's intent in recommending Amendments 126/114 is to improve 
salmon accounting for all species, reduce monitoring costs, and improve 
the quality of monitoring data.
    The Council adopted the following purpose and need statement to 
originate this action in June 2021:
    ``To carry out their responsibilities for conserving and managing 
groundfish resources, the Council and NMFS must have high quality, 
timely, and cost-effective data to support management and scientific 
information needs. In part, this information is collected through a 
fishery monitoring program for the groundfish fisheries off Alaska. 
While a large component of this monitoring program relies on the use of 
human observers, the Council supports integrating electronic monitoring 
and reporting technologies into NMFS North Pacific fisheries-dependent 
data collection program, where applicable, to ensure that scientists, 
managers, policy makers, and industry are informed with fishery-
dependent information that is relevant to policy priorities, of high 
quality, and available when needed, and obtained in a cost-effective 
manner. The Council and NMFS have been on the path of integrating 
technology into the fisheries monitoring systems for many years, with 
electronic reporting systems in place, and operational EM in some 
fisheries. An EM program for compliance purposes on pelagic pollock 
trawl catcher vessels and tenders both delivering to shoreside 
processors will obtain necessary information for quality accounting for 
catch including bycatch and salmon PSC in a cost-effective manner, and 
provide reliable data for compliance monitoring of a no discard 
requirement for salmon PSC. This trawl EM program has the potential to 
advance cost efficiency and compliance monitoring, through improved 
salmon accounting and reduced monitoring costs. Regulatory change is 
needed to modify the current retention and discard requirements to 
allow participating CVs to maximize retention of all species caught 
(i.e., minimize discards to the greatest extent practicable) for the 
use of EM as a compliance tool on trawl catcher vessels in both the 
full and partial coverage categories of the Observer Program and meet 
monitoring objectives on trawl catcher vessels in the Bering Sea (BS) 
and Gulf of Alaska (GOA) pelagic pollock fisheries.''
    In consultation with the Council, NMFS has considerable annual 
flexibility to provide observer coverage to respond to the scientific 
and management needs of the fisheries. By integrating EM on catcher 
vessels targeting pollock with pelagic trawl gear as a tool in the 
fisheries monitoring suite, the Council seeks to preserve and increase 
this flexibility. Regulatory change would be needed to specify vessel 
operator and processor responsibilities for using EM technologies, 
after which NMFS, in consultation with the Council would be able to 
deploy observer and EM monitoring tools tailored to the needs of 
different fishery sectors through the ADP.
    Amendments 126/114 would add new language to section 3.9.2 of the 
BSAI and GOA FMPs to allow the use of EM systems to meet observer 
coverage

[[Page 7664]]

requirements for catcher vessels under the Observer Program.
    This proposed rule to implement Amendments 126/114 would establish 
regulations for an EM option for catcher vessels and tender vessels 
delivering pollock to shoreside processors and stationary floating 
processors in the BS, AI, and the GOA. While the Council's purpose and 
need statement did not specify that EM could be used by catcher vessels 
fishing in the AI, the Council motion at final action clarified that 
should an AI pollock fishery be open, participating catcher vessels 
would have the opportunity to participate in trawl EM.

Trawl EM Category

    This proposed rule would implement the requirements described below 
to allow owners or operators of catcher vessels and tender vessels to 
choose to use an EM system in place of an observer. Participation in 
trawl EM would be voluntary and a vessel owner or operator could choose 
on an annual basis to request a vessel's placement in the trawl EM 
category.
    This proposed rule would establish the process and structure for 
use of an EM video system to monitor whether discards at sea occur. 
Further, it would establish video review to verify vessel discard 
estimates submitted by those catcher vessels using pelagic trawl gear 
and tender vessels that choose to be in the trawl EM category. NMFS's 
intent is largely to allow trawl EM category vessels to continue their 
normal operations and allow the cameras to capture data observations 
that an EM reviewer would then extract onshore. For fishing trips by 
vessels in the trawl EM category, the data collection previously 
conducted by at-sea observers would be completed by observers stationed 
at the processor receiving the catch. This is possible because EM 
systems would monitor all points of discard on the catcher vessel and 
tender vessel (if used) from the time the catch is brought onboard the 
catcher vessel or tender vessel to the point of delivery. This will 
ensure all catch is monitored by EM systems at sea and allow the 
collection of statistically robust fishery data at the point of 
delivery at the processor. Data collected at the processor could 
include the collection of species composition samples, PSC data, 
biological samples, and other sampling assigned by NMFS. One of the 
Council's objectives for this action is to achieve the most efficient 
use of observer resources. By shifting observer sampling duties from 
at-sea vessels to shoreside processors and stationary floating 
processors, each observer would be able to monitor more catch with 
greater accuracy.
    In the event NMFS identifies additional data that cannot be 
collected at the processor, NMFS retains the authority to deploy at-sea 
observers on catcher vessels in the trawl EM category. Additionally, 
some level of at-sea data collection in the pollock fisheries will 
continue to be necessary to collect certain spatial and biological 
data. This data is currently being collected on vessels that remain in 
the observer coverage categories; however, if the number of vessels 
remaining in the observer coverage categories drops to low levels, 
additional at-sea observer coverage could be necessary in the full 
coverage or the partial coverage trawl EM category. NMFS would make 
these observer coverage decisions through the ADP process.
    Currently, catcher vessels in the partial coverage category are 
required to have an observer at-sea on each selected trip and full 
coverage vessels carry an observer every trip. When vessels deliver 
trawl-caught pollock, the at-sea observer follows the fish into the 
processing plant and completes the enumeration and sampling of salmon 
during the vessel's delivery. Under this proposed rule, these at-sea 
observers would no longer be a resource available for sampling these 
vessels' catch. Instead, shoreside processors or stationary floating 
processors would be responsible for ensuring that all salmon are placed 
in a designated storage container until the observers have the 
opportunity to sample them consistent with proposed regulations at 
Sec.  679.28(g)(9)(ii).
    In addition to observers stationed at shoreside processors and 
stationary floating processors, Catch Monitoring Control Plans (CMCPs) 
and vessel monitoring plans (VMPs) would be used to determine and 
achieve the sampling objectives outlined by NMFS in the ADP. The EM 
systems onboard vessels would ensure that compliance monitoring 
objectives are met while providing a chain of custody for PSC. 
Observers at shoreside processors or stationary floating processors 
would then collect species composition, PSC, and biological samples as 
determined by the Alaska Fisheries Science Center, Fisheries Monitoring 
and Analysis Division. The flexibility offered by the ADP allows NMFS 
and the Council to achieve transparency, accountability, and efficiency 
from the Observer Program to meet its various objectives. The ADP 
process ensures that the best available information is used to evaluate 
deployment, including scientific review and Council input, to annually 
determine deployment methods.
    Due to these changes, a ``one size fits all'' approach to deploying 
observer resources would be an inefficient use of observer resources. 
For example, a processor receiving deliveries 24 hours a day, 7 days a 
week from catcher vessels in the trawl EM category would require more 
observer resources than a processor receiving only one or two such 
deliveries each day. NMFS is proposing that the number of observers 
required at each processing plant receiving deliveries from vessels 
approved to operate in the trawl EM category be tailored to each 
processor based on metrics specified in the ADP and consistent with 
proposed regulations at Sec.  679.51(b)(2)(i). Observers stationed at 
processors would collect data as requested by the Alaska Fisheries 
Science Center, Fisheries Monitoring and Analysis Division. NMFS would 
continue to work with data users, including stock assessors and other 
scientists, to evaluate the trawl EM category and monitor for data 
gaps.
    All fishing trips for each vessel operating in the trawl EM 
category would be required to improve retention (i.e., minimize 
discards to the greatest extent practicable) and record all catch 
handling. All EM data would be submitted as required to NMFS for review 
to ensure the program elements are followed. Failure to meet the 
program objectives, as outlined in the ADP and VMP, may result in 
disapproval of further participation in the trawl EM category and 
potential enforcement action.
    This proposed rule would implement requirements applicable to: (1) 
catcher vessels in the trawl EM category; (2) tender vessels, shoreside 
processors, and stationary floating processors receiving deliveries 
from catcher vessels in the trawl EM category; (3) observer providers; 
and (4) EM service providers for vessels in the trawl EM category.
    Under this proposed rule, a catcher vessel would remain subject to 
observer coverage, currently described at Sec.  679.51(a)(1) or Sec.  
679.51(a)(2), unless NMFS approves a request for placement of the 
catcher vessel in the trawl EM category. Tender vessels are not 
currently subject to observer coverage requirements under subpart E to 
part 679 and this proposed rule would establish monitoring requirements 
for tender vessels that receive deliveries from a catcher vessel in the 
trawl EM category. Shoreside processors and stationary floating 
processors are subject to observer coverage requirements at Sec.  
679.51(b)(1) or Sec.  679.51(b)(2). This

[[Page 7665]]

proposed rule would establish additional observer sampling station and 
monitoring requirements at Sec.  679.28(g)(7) through (10) for 
shoreside processors and stationary floating processors. These observer 
sampling station and monitoring requirements previously existed for 
shoreside processors and stationary floating processors receiving 
American Fisheries Act (AFA) deliveries. Under this proposed rule, 
those requirements would be expanded to any plant receiving trawl EM 
deliveries to support shoreside observers and include additional 
requirements, such as updating spatial requirements to allow for new 
data collections. Additionally, under this proposed rule, entities 
intending to provide EM hardware to vessels in the full coverage EM 
category would be required to apply, and be approved, for an EM 
hardware service provider permit as specified at Sec.  679.52(d) and 
(e).

Annual Request for Placement in the Trawl EM Category and Compliance 
Responsibilities

    Under this proposed rule, eligible vessel owners or operators of 
catcher vessels would voluntarily request to participate in the trawl 
EM category annually through ODDS by November 1 and, if approved, would 
be subject to coverage requirements as specified by NMFS. Specifically, 
any owner or operator of a catcher vessel--that is, a catcher vessel 
with a pollock pelagic trawl endorsement on their Federal Fisheries 
Permit (FFP)--or a tender vessel receiving deliveries from these 
catcher vessels, may request to be in the trawl EM category. Shoreside 
processors or stationary floating processors would indicate annually 
during their CMCP process whether they intend to receive deliveries, or 
use tenders to receive deliveries, from vessels in a trawl EM category. 
This process consists of a shoreside processor or stationary floating 
processor submitting a CMCP to the NMFS CMCP specialist.
    The November 1 deadline for catcher vessels would allow potential 
participants to review the draft ADP, which would be available in 
October, prior to deciding whether to request to join the trawl EM 
category. The draft ADP would contain NMFS's criteria for determining 
how catcher vessels would be assigned to the partial coverage trawl EM 
category. The ADP would be finalized in December.
    This proposed rule establishes responsibilities for the operator of 
a catcher vessel or tender vessel in the trawl EM category to install 
and maintain the EM system. Vessels in the trawl EM category would be 
required to comply with all provisions of the trawl EM category, 
including those specified in regulations, the ADP, and in individual 
VMPs. This proposed rule would add regulations at Sec.  679.51(g) to 
specify the EM system requirements for vessels using pelagic trawl 
gear. A catcher vessel would remain in the trawl EM category for all 
directed fishing for pollock with pelagic trawl gear for the entirety 
of the fishing year, in order to maintain the sampling design outlined 
in the ADP. A tender vessel would remain in the trawl EM category at 
all times when receiving catch from a catcher vessel in the trawl EM 
category during the fishing year. Vessels would not be able to leave 
the trawl EM category during a fishing year in order to maintain the 
sampling design used for that year.

Trawl EM Coverage

    This proposed rule would establish two coverage categories within 
the trawl EM category: (1) full coverage; and (2) partial coverage. 
Unless otherwise specified in this proposed rule, the trawl EM category 
encompasses both the full coverage and partial coverage trawl EM 
categories.

Full Coverage Trawl EM Category

    Proposed regulations at Sec.  679.51(g)(1)(i)(A)(2) define the full 
coverage trawl EM category for catcher vessel operating in the BS or 
Community Development Quota (CDQ) fisheries. These vessels are 
currently in the Observer Program's full coverage category. For the 
fishing year, if a catcher vessel is approved to be in the full 
coverage trawl EM category, that vessel would be subject to this 
proposed rule for every fishing trip in which the vessel deploys 
pelagic trawl gear. This would mean, in addition to other requirements, 
these vessels must ensure their EM systems are operating and actively 
recording for the duration of every pelagic trawl gear fishing trip and 
associated offload. The CDQ pollock fishery is not currently prosecuted 
by catcher vessels delivering to shoreside processors or stationary 
floating processors, but if this activity does occur in the future, and 
the catcher vessels meet the eligibility requirements of the trawl EM 
category, they would be included in the full coverage category. The 
owner or operator of a vessel in the full coverage trawl EM category 
would be responsible for contracting with a permitted EM hardware 
service provider, as specified at 679.51(g)(1)(ix), to procure, 
install, and maintain EM equipment on their vessel. To pay for video 
review services for vessels in the full coverage trawl EM category, 
this proposed rule would establish a new full coverage EM review fee in 
proposed regulations at Sec.  679.56.

Partial Coverage Trawl EM Category

    Proposed regulations at Sec.  679.51(g)(1)(i)(A)(1) define the 
partial coverage trawl EM category for catcher vessels operating in the 
GOA or AI. These vessels are currently in the Observer Program's 
partial coverage category.
    Catcher vessels approved to be in the partial coverage trawl EM 
category must continue to log all trips in ODDS. Access to ODDS is 
available through the NMFS Alaska Region website. For the fishing year, 
every fishing trip in which a partial coverage catcher vessel deploys 
solely pelagic trawl gear is considered a part of the trawl EM category 
and is subject to this proposed rule (proposed rule at Sec.  
679.51(g)). This would mean, these vessels must, in addition to other 
requirements, ensure their EM system is operating and actively 
recording for the duration of every fishing trip and associated 
offload. Vessels in the partial coverage trawl EM category would be 
prohibited from deploying non-pelagic trawl gear while on a fishing 
trip subject to EM coverage. Catcher vessels in the partial coverage 
trawl EM category would be required to deliver catch only to tender 
vessels or processors in the trawl EM category having a NMFS-approved 
VMP or CMCP. Vessels in the partial coverage trawl EM category will use 
NMFS's contracted EM hardware service provider that has been procured 
through the partial coverage fee program. EM equipment for vessels in 
the partial coverage trawl EM category would be paid for by the 
observer fees as specified at Sec.  679.55.
    The AI pollock fishery is not currently prosecuted by catcher 
vessels delivering to shoreside processors or stationary floating 
processors, but if this activity were to occur, and the catcher vessels 
meet the eligibility requirements of the trawl EM category, they would 
be included in the partial coverage trawl EM category.

Tender Vessels

    The proposed rule adds EM requirements for tender vessels that are 
used to transport unprocessed groundfish received from a catcher vessel 
in the trawl EM category to an associated processor. As part of the 
unprocessed groundfish chain of custody, it is necessary for tender 
vessels to comply with EM requirements to ensure no sorting of catch 
occurs between the catcher vessel and the processor. Proposed 
regulations at

[[Page 7666]]

Sec.  679.51(g)(1)(i)(B) allow the owner or operator of a tender vessel 
to request to be placed in the trawl EM category before receiving any 
delivery from a catcher vessel in the trawl EM category. A tender 
vessel that is approved to be in the trawl EM category must comply with 
applicable vessel responsibilities specified at Sec.  679.51(g)(3) for 
every delivery received and offload subject to the trawl EM category, 
including ensuring their EM system is operating and actively recording 
for the duration of every trip and associated offload.
    Tender vessels are primarily used by small catcher vessels in the 
Western GOA that fish in locations that make it inefficient for these 
catcher vessels to deliver their catch directly to a shoreside or 
stationary floating processor.

Shoreside Processors and Stationary Floating Processors

    For shoreside processors or stationary floating processors to 
receive deliveries from vessels in the trawl EM category, the proposed 
rule includes additional catch handling requirements. Shoreside 
processors or stationary floating processors would indicate their 
intent to receive EM deliveries in the upcoming fishing year during the 
annual CMCP process. Under proposed regulations at Sec.  679.28(g)(7), 
(9), and (10) shoreside processors or stationary floating processors 
receiving deliveries from vessels in the trawl EM category would be 
required to follow specified salmon sorting and handling procedures to 
ensure shoreside observers have full access to salmon bycatch. The 
proposed rule at Sec.  679.28(g)(9) would allow observers at these 
processors to collect full salmon and Pacific halibut retention data 
and necessary biological samples, which are vital in monitoring the 
health and status of those stocks in Alaska.
    Current regulations at Sec.  679.21(f)(15)(ii)(C) require salmon 
retention and storage for processors in the BS pollock fishery. This 
proposed rule would move these existing regulations to Sec.  
679.28(g)(9)(ii) and (g)(10), and extend those regulations to shoreside 
processors and stationary floating processors receiving deliveries from 
vessels in the trawl EM category in the GOA. Each year NMFS publishes 
an Observer Sampling Manual, which contains the comprehensive sampling 
procedures and methods to be used by observers to collect fishery-
dependent data, but does not establish the sampling rate. The criteria 
used to determine the sampling rate required at shoreside processors 
and stationary floating processors receiving deliveries from vessels in 
the trawl EM category will be determined annually and published in the 
ADP.

EM Service Providers

    There are currently two types of EM service providers: (1) EM 
hardware service providers that equip and maintain EM systems aboard 
vessels, and (2) EM review service providers that receive and review EM 
data from EM systems. This proposed rule would add a regulation at 
Sec.  679.2 to define an EM service provider as ``any person, including 
their employees or agents, that NMFS contracts with, or grants an EM 
hardware service provider permit to under Sec.  679.52(d), to provide 
EM services, or to review, interpret, or analyze EM data as required 
under Sec.  679.51.'' NMFS may contract with, or grant a permit to, a 
prospective EM hardware service provider if their data are readily 
accessible by the current EM service provider NMFS has selected for 
reviewing EM data.

EM Hardware Service Provider Permit

    Alaskan fishing vessels operate in a challenging environment and 
endure harsh conditions, making it necessary to ensure that an EM 
hardware service provider is properly equipped to deploy and service EM 
hardware onboard vessels in the trawl EM category. This proposed rule 
would add regulations at Sec.  679.52 specifying the procedures for 
applying to NMFS for and NMFS' issuance of, an EM hardware service 
provider permit, responsibilities of EM hardware service providers, and 
issuance of permits to existing EM hardware service providers upon 
implementation of this proposed rule. Prospective EM hardware service 
providers will need to apply to NMFS, and be approved, for an EM 
hardware service provider permit. Once approved and issued by NMFS, the 
EM hardware service provider permit is valid until the provider becomes 
inactive, providing no EM services for a period of 12 consecutive 
months. Performance of the EM hardware service provider will be 
assessed annually on the ability of the provider to meet program 
objectives.

EM Review Service Providers

    An EM data review service provider is a provider that NMFS 
contracts with, or otherwise has an established business relationship 
with, to review, interpret, or analyze EM data as required under Sec.  
679.51. An EM data review service provider is selected by NMFS to avoid 
any conflicts of interest caused by vessels in the trawl EM category 
having a direct financial relationship with the independent EM data 
review service providers. This model reflects the same system that is 
currently in place for observers.

EM Equipment and VMPs

    The operator of each catcher vessel or tender vessel approved by 
NMFS to be in the trawl EM category, must make their vessel available 
to an EM hardware service provider for installation and servicing of 
all required EM system components according to proposed regulations at 
Sec.  679.51(g)(1)(ix). The EM hardware service provider would install 
the EM system and cameras in locations that meet the monitoring 
objectives annually specified in the ADP. Full coverage vessels would 
choose their permitted EM hardware service provider, while partial 
coverage catcher vessels or tender vessels would be assigned a NMFS-
permitted EM hardware service provider by NMFS.
    If a vessel already has an EM system installed from a non-permitted 
EM hardware service provider, the catcher vessel or tender vessel 
operator would work with a NMFS-permitted EM hardware service provider 
to modify the EM system as necessary to meet the specifications in the 
trawl EM category. For example, a catcher vessel or tender vessel may 
have an existing EM system on board because that catcher vessel or 
tender vessel participates in another federally managed fishery that 
has an EM program.
    After EM equipment has been installed or serviced, the catcher 
vessel or tender vessel operator would develop a VMP with the EM 
hardware service provider and submit it to NMFS for approval according 
to proposed regulations at Sec.  679.51(g)(2). A VMP is a document that 
includes operator responsibilities for the trawl EM category, including 
requirements for sending EM data to the EM data review service provider 
for review, restrictions should EM equipment malfunction, and how 
feedback from NMFS or the EM data review service provider would be 
communicated to vessel operators.
    The catcher vessel or tender vessel operator agrees to comply with 
the components of the VMP and would submit a signed VMP to NMFS. NMFS 
would review the VMP for completeness and may request additional 
clarification. If the VMP meets the requirements established in the VMP 
template, NMFS would approve the VMP and place the vessel in a trawl EM 
category for the fishing year.
    A catcher vessel or tender vessel in the trawl EM category would be 
required to maintain a copy of their current NMFS-approved VMP onboard 
at all times while that catcher vessel conducts fishing activities, or 
tender

[[Page 7667]]

vessel receives EM deliveries, as part of the trawl EM category. If 
NMFS does not approve the VMP, NMFS will issue an IAD to the vessel 
owner or operator that will explain the basis for the disapproval. The 
vessel owner or operator may file an administrative appeal under the 
administrative appeals procedures set out at 15 CFR part 906.
    The catcher vessel or tender vessel operator would be required to 
make the NMFS-approved VMP available to NOAA Office of Law Enforcement 
(OLE) or other NMFS-authorized officer or personnel upon request (see 
Sec.  679.51(g)(4)(iv)).
    If NMFS determines that a catcher vessel or tender vessel is out of 
compliance with the VMP, the catcher vessel or tender vessel's 
application for placement in the trawl EM category may not be approved 
the following year. For example, repeated discarding of PSC, repeated 
failure to ensure the entirety of the trip is recorded due to 
negligence of the crew, or failure to make the changes necessary to 
achieve monitoring goals may be grounds for NMFS to disapprove a VMP.

Catcher Vessel and Tender Vessel Operator Responsibilities

    Catcher vessel and tender vessel operators would be required to 
maintain the EM system in working order, including ensuring the EM 
system is powered and functioning throughout the fishing trip, keeping 
cameras clean and unobstructed, and ensuring the system is not tampered 
with, consistent with proposed regulations at Sec.  679.51(g)(3). 
Catcher vessel or tender vessel operators would also be required to 
ensure that power is maintained to the EM system at all times when the 
vessel is underway or the engine is operating on such fishing trips. 
Additionally, catcher vessel or tender vessel operators would be 
required to ensure the EM system is fully functional prior to deploying 
gear during the fishing trip or prior to receiving a delivery, as 
applicable.
    Before fishing gear is retrieved or an offload is received, the 
catcher vessel or tender vessel operator would need to verify that all 
components of the EM system are functioning. Instructions for 
completing this verification would be provided in the vessel's VMP 
consistent with proposed regulations at Sec.  679.51(g)(2)(vi).
    Catcher vessel and tender vessel operators would also be required 
to follow landing notice procedures specified in the VMP, consistent 
with proposed regulations at Sec.  679.51(g)(3). The landing notice 
would be transmitted by the catcher vessel or tender vessel to the 
intended shoreside processor or stationary floating processor, 
consistent with the timeline specified in the VMP prior to returning to 
port. After receiving the landing notice from the vessel, the processor 
will relay that information to shoreside observers. The landing notice 
would also provide shoreside observers in the BSAI and GOA the 
information necessary to meet the objectives specified by NMFS in the 
ADP.
    Catcher vessel or tender vessel operators would be prohibited from 
tampering with the EM system or harassing their EM service provider, EM 
reviewers, or any other monitoring personnel who may be working with 
operators to enact this program. Additional prohibitions would be added 
to existing EM prohibitions at Sec.  679.7(j) to ensure the EM system 
functions and the data from these systems is usable for fisheries 
management. Other operator responsibilities would be identified in the 
VMP to meet data needs for EM monitoring.
    Catcher vessel or tender vessel operators would submit the EM data 
to the EM data review provider using a method specified in the approved 
VMP. Operators of vessels in the trawl EM category would submit EM data 
after a specified number of trips, consistent with the vessel's 
approved VMP. This frequency would be defined in the VMP and could 
change based on data needs identified by NMFS, consistent with proposed 
regulations at Sec.  679.51(g).

EM System Malfunctions

    The EM system must be fully operational as described in the VMP. 
The VMP would list EM system malfunctions that would be considered 
contrary to the data collection objectives. The VMP would also describe 
the procedures to follow if malfunctions were detected, including 
contacting the EM service provider and OLE. The proposed regulations at 
Sec.  679.51(g)(4) describe the responsibilities of the catcher vessel 
or tender vessel operator in case of an EM system malfunction.

Improved Retention of Catch

    With trawl EM, catcher vessel operators would retain all catch 
except for where safety and stability of the vessel would be 
compromised (see proposed regulations at Sec.  679.7(j)(2)). Improved 
retention of catch is necessary to provide observers stationed at 
shoreside processor and stationary floating processors receiving 
deliveries from vessels in the trawl EM category with unsorted catch 
for collection of biological samples and to minimize potential biases 
in data collection. Improved retention would greatly reduce at-sea 
discards and improve catch accounting, resulting in improved estimates 
of catch and bycatch in the pollock fisheries.
    For all fishing trips, catcher vessels would be expected to avoid 
sorting and discarding catch to the greatest extent practicable. The 
term ``sort,'' ``sorting,'' or ``sorted'' means removing any ``fish'' 
from the unsorted catch. ``Discard'' means to release or return fish to 
the sea, whether or not such fish are brought fully on board a fishing 
vessel (see Sec.  600.10). The term ``fish'', when used as a noun, 
means any finfish, mollusk, crustacean, or parts thereof, and all other 
forms of marine animal and plant life other than marine mammals and 
birds (see Sec.  600.10). Unsorted catch would be delivered to a tender 
vessel, shoreside processor, or a stationary floating processor to 
ensure observers have access to all catch. The most common instances of 
discards at-sea are related to spillage events, discards needed for 
safety or stability, and large organisms that are challenging to 
accommodate on board a catcher vessel, such as sharks.
    Operators of catcher vessels less than 60 feet (18.3 meters) length 
overall (LOA) in the trawl EM category would now be required to report 
any at-sea discards in their logbook, and operators would also report 
this information to NMFS and shoreside processors in eLanding reports 
(see proposed regulations at Sec.  679.5(a)(1) and (4)). Catcher vessel 
logbook estimates of discards would be verified in the video review 
process by an EM review service provider. Additionally, EM reviewers 
make independent estimates of any discard events and that data would be 
used to verify catcher vessel compliance to ensure catcher vessels are 
following improved retention rules under this program.

Removing Requirements for Regulatory Discards

    This proposed rule includes particular exceptions to regulations 
that require discarding catch at sea in specific circumstances to 
promote retention of catch for catcher vessels in the trawl EM 
category. Catcher vessels in the trawl EM category would not be subject 
to the prohibition against exceeding Maximum Retainable Amounts (MRAs) 
in the BS, AI, and GOA, the prohibition against vessels having on 
board, at any particular time, 20 or more crabs of any species, and the 
prohibition against exceeding the pollock trip limit in the GOA.

[[Page 7668]]

    This proposed rule exempts vessels in the trawl EM category from 
the regulations at Sec.  679.20(e) pertaining to MRAs that limit 
retention of incidentally caught species so that total harvest can be 
managed up to, but not over, the Total Allowable Catch (TAC) by the end 
of the year. The MRA regulations at Sec.  679.20(e) result in at-sea 
discards of fish above the MRA amount for each species. While the 
prohibition on exceeding the MRAs would be removed for vessels 
participating in the trawl EM category, NMFS would continue to use MRA 
calculations to determine whether a vessel is ``directed fishing'' for 
a particular species and gauge whether vessel behavior has changed, in 
conjunction with the Trawl EM Incentive Plan Agreement (TEM IPA) 
discussed below.
    This proposed rule would also add an exception for vessels 
participating in the trawl EM category from the regulation at Sec.  
679.7(a)(14)(i) that prohibits vessels in the BSAI and GOA from having 
on board, at any particular time, 20 or more crabs of any species with 
a carapace width of more than 1.5 inches (38 millimeters) at the widest 
dimension. Catcher vessels would retain all crabs for enumeration by 
shoreside observers at the processor, as described below in the PSC 
Retention section of this preamble. This change would improve NMFS's 
ability to estimate crab bycatch in the pollock fisheries.
    Additionally, this proposed rule would also exempt vessels in the 
trawl EM category from the regulations at Sec.  679.7(b)(2) that limit 
catcher vessels' harvest of pollock in the GOA (commonly referred to as 
the pollock trip limit). Currently, catcher vessels are subject to a 
300,000 pound onboard retention limit on pollock, requiring vessels to 
discard any pollock in excess of 300,000 pounds.

Trawl EM Incentive Plan Agreements for Partial Coverage Catcher Vessels

    To maintain the controls on the pollock fisheries that the MRAs, 
crab retention limit, and the GOA pollock trip limit provide, this 
proposed rule includes provisions for a Trawl EM Incentive Plan 
Agreement (TEM IPA) to limit changes in partial coverage category 
vessel behavior notwithstanding these proposed regulatory changes. 
Namely, the TEM IPAs would aim to prevent catcher vessels from 
targeting species other than pollock, failing to avoid bycatch, and 
exceeding trip limits or MRAs, when in the trawl EM category. With the 
TEM IPA, NMFS does not anticipate that the proposed action would change 
how catcher vessels in the partial coverage trawl EM category operate, 
their harvest limits, or their amount of bycatch.
    Under this proposed rule, in order to be qualified to participate 
in the trawl EM category, partial coverage catcher vessels would be 
required to become a party to a trawl EM Incentive Plan Agreement (TEM 
IPA). The TEM IPA was modeled on the Salmon bycatch IPAs (see Sec.  
679.21(f)(12)), which have proven to be a successful method for the BS 
pollock fleet to modify its behavior to meet NMFS management goals.
    An IPA is an industry-developed contractual arrangement that is 
approved by NMFS. For the trawl EM category, NMFS would approve an IPA 
if the IPA meets the criteria specified in proposed regulations at 
Sec.  679.57. To ensure IPAs are effective, IPA parties would be 
required to demonstrate to the Council through annual reports that the 
IPA is accomplishing the Council's intent that each vessel limit 
changes in behavior. Under proposed rule regulations at Sec.  679.57, 
TEM IPAs would be structured to limit changes in vessel behavior as a 
result of this proposed rule. For instance, the IPAs would aim to 
encourage catcher vessels to avoid targeting non-pollock species, avoid 
bycatch, and avoid exceeding trip limits or MRAs, when in the trawl EM 
category and to meet specific goals to avoid exceeding MRAs and the GOA 
pollock trip limit.
    Currently, all full coverage vessels are AFA vessels that have 
these measures incorporated into existing cooperative agreements and 
there is little to no incentive to retain species other than pollock. 
Additionally, all potential EM trawl full coverage participants are 
party to a Salmon bycatch IPA, therefore a TEM IPA would not be 
required for full coverage trawl EM category catcher vessels.
    NMFS inseason management staff would track trawl EM category 
bycatch and pollock harvest and provide updates in the Annual Inseason 
Report to the Council. In addition, the representative of each approved 
TEM IPA would submit a written annual report to the Council, which 
would be available to the public. Upon receipt of the Annual Reports on 
the TEM IPA, the Council may re-evaluate the goals of the TEM IPA and 
make adjustments as necessary. Each year NMFS will publish on the NMFS 
Alaska Region website the approved list of TEM IPAs and NMFS Approval 
Memos, the list of parties to each IPA, approved modifications to the 
TEM IPAs, and the list of catcher vessels that, on average, catch more 
than 300,000 pounds of pollock per fishing trip in the GOA and or 
harvest bycatch in quantities that would exceed MRAs. For the sake of 
clarity, each TEM IPA will define how these averages will be calculated 
over the fishing year.

PSC Retention

    Currently, vessels are required to retain all salmon for 
enumeration at the processing plant, but not other PSC species or 
groundfish species placed on PSC status when the TAC is reached. Under 
this proposed rule, catcher vessels fishing in the trawl EM category 
would be required to retain all species, including crab, categorized as 
PSC so that they can be fully enumerated by shoreside observers at the 
processing plant as specified at Sec.  679.21(a)(2). This requirement 
to retain PSC would result in more precise enumeration at the shoreside 
plant and is unlikely to change the rate at which these catcher vessels 
harvest these PSC species.

Logbooks

    Logbooks are necessary for trawl EM data flow, and the trawl EM 
category would not work without this component. Logbooks would be 
required for all participants in the trawl EM category. While location 
and effort are collected by the EM systems, logbooks collect other data 
necessary for catch accounting and stock assessments. Catcher vessels 
in the trawl EM category would be able to use NMFS-approved paper or 
electronic logbooks and follow the logbook-related regulations at Sec.  
679.5(a).
    Discard information is reported in the logbook and would be 
provided to the shoreside processor during offload and recorded in the 
eLandings report. Under this proposed rule, the video reviewer would 
verify compliance with reporting at-sea discard information in the 
logbook for all vessels in the trawl EM category.
    Catcher vessels less than 60 feet (18.3 meters) LOA that 
participate in the Western GOA do not currently have a logbook 
requirement and, indeed, are exempt from logbook requirements under 
Sec.  679.5(a)(4). Under this proposed rule, these catcher vessels in 
the trawl EM category would be required to maintain a logbook to 
participate in the trawl EM category. This proposed rule would also add 
catcher vessels in the trawl EM category to the list of exceptions to 
the exemption at Sec.  679.5(a)(4).

CMCP

    Under this proposed rule, catcher vessels and tender vessels in the 
trawl EM category would only deliver fish to a shoreside processor or 
stationary floating processor that has a NMFS-approved CMCP in place. 
Processors

[[Page 7669]]

would be prohibited from receiving deliveries from a catcher vessel, or 
tender vessel, in the trawl EM category without a NMFS-approved CMCP.
    For pollock, CMCPs are currently required for AFA shoreside 
processors and stationary floating processors and any shoreside 
processors or stationary floating processors receiving AI directed 
pollock deliveries. Currently, not all potential trawl EM processors 
currently receive AFA pollock deliveries. CMCPs provide a framework for 
how a shoreside processor or stationary floating processor operates 
when receiving fish from catcher vessels and tender vessels and how 
landing information is communicated to necessary personnel. In this 
proposed rule, CMCPs would be required for all shoreside processors and 
stationary floating processors receiving deliveries from vessels in the 
trawl EM category. CMCPs include provisions that ensure observers 
stationed at processors have the necessary tools, such as enhanced 
sample station requirements, to collect fishery data and biological 
information related to catch and PSC. Additionally, CMCPs facilitate 
communication between the processors and the observers collecting data 
related to the pollock fishery. NMFS reviews these plans annually and 
may adjust them inseason to enhance their effectiveness as necessary.
    Currently, each shoreside processor and stationary floating 
processor receiving AFA, CDQ, or AI directed pollock are required to 
develop and operate under a NMFS-approved CMCP. The procedures were 
established under the regulation at Sec.  679.28(g). CMCPs were 
designed to monitor the weighing of pollock, sorting and weighing of 
bycatch to species, and proper sorting and storage of salmon at the 
shoreside processors. Under the proposed rule, all shoreside processors 
and stationary floating processors receiving pollock from vessels in 
the trawl EM category would be required to have approved CMCPs in 
place. This proposed rule would also change wording to clarify that 
NMFS ``may,'' not ``will,'' inspect these processors, as external 
factors may prevent an in-person inspection of each processor in a 
given year.
    The current CMCP regulations require that processors meet minimum 
observer sampling station area requirements. Observer sampling stations 
are crucial for ensuring data quality in fisheries monitoring due to 
their standardized environments. These standards allow trained 
observers to accurately record catch details, species identification, 
and other critical data points by minimizing the challenges posed by 
the dynamic setting of shoreside processors and stationary floating 
processors. This proposed rule modifies existing regulations at Sec.  
679.28(g) to reorganize CMCP requirements to improve clarity and 
consistency and to add provisions necessary to facilitate observer data 
collection for trawl EM category deliveries.
    For example, this proposed rule clarifies and improves current 
requirements for observer sampling stations for processors at Sec.  
679.28(g)(7)(ix). This proposed rule includes requirements for the 
location of the observer station, platform scale, minimum workspace, 
table size, etc., to more closely align with observer sample station 
requirements applicable to at-sea catcher/processor vessels. 
Modifications to the pre-existing requirements create a more consistent 
working environment for observers stationed at processors while also 
enhancing data collection.
    NMFS would define the criteria in the ADP for determining the 
necessary number of observers. The criteria for determining the 
necessary amount of observers for a given processor may include tonnage 
processed, number of deliveries, or processing hours. These criteria 
would apply to all processors receiving deliveries from vessels in the 
trawl EM category. The specific number of observers necessary to meet 
sampling objectives would be listed in the CMCP, which could be updated 
throughout the year to ensure that the necessary number of observers 
are present, as processing effort may change seasonally. For example, a 
processor may need four observers during ``A season'' to meet sampling 
objectives, but during ``B season'', the same processor may need 
additional observers to fully account for chum salmon.

Observer Providers

    Shoreside processors and stationary floating processors receiving 
deliveries from vessels in the full coverage trawl EM category would 
procure observer services by arranging and paying for observer services 
directly from a permitted observer provider consistent with existing 
regulations at Sec.  679.51(d). This proposed rule would modify 
regulations governing observer provider permitting and responsibilities 
at Sec.  679.52 to remove fax as an electronic communication method, 
update how often specific information must be submitted to NMFS (see 
Observer Program Fees section), and clarify the requirements for 
observer providers to monitor observer conduct and address observer 
misconduct. The latter clarifies requirements for provider action to 
rectify observer misconduct.

Observer Program Fees

    NMFS is authorized under section 313 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act to 
require observer program participants in any North Pacific fishery to 
pay a fee for observer and EM monitoring provided the fee does not 
exceed 2 percent of the fishery ex-vessel value. To pay for video 
review services for vessels in the full coverage trawl EM category, 
this proposed rule would establish a new full coverage EM review fee in 
proposed regulations at Sec.  679.56.
    This new fee would be used by NMFS to pay for the costs of data 
review, storage, and transmission of EM data for vessels in the full 
coverage trawl EM category. The annual cost of EM review, data storage, 
and transmission would then be divided among full coverage vessels in 
the trawl EM category. NMFS would use the pollock catch history (i.e., 
actual harvest amount) from the previous year to divide the cost 
equitably among full coverage participants in the trawl EM category 
that year. Invoices would be sent to vessel owners and payment would be 
required by May 31. Failure to pay the full coverage trawl EM fee would 
prevent a catcher vessel or tender vessel from being selected for the 
trawl EM category in the following year as specified at Sec.  
679.51(g)(1)(4).
    Consistent with regulations at Sec.  679.55, NMFS would use funds 
from the existing observer fees to pay for EM hardware and review 
services for vessels in the partial coverage category. Catcher vessels 
and tender vessels in the partial coverage category (vessels operating 
in the GOA and AI pollock fisheries) would continue to pay the existing 
observer fee as specified at Sec.  679.55. The partial coverage 
observer category is funded through a system of fees collected from 
fishery participants (vessels and processors) under authority of 
section 313 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. NMFS would use partial 
coverage fees to procure shoreside observers, deploy and support EM 
equipment on selected vessels, and pay for EM video review and data 
storage.

Other Regulatory Changes

    In addition to the regulations necessary to implement the trawl EM 
category, NMFS proposes revising the following regulations for clarity 
and efficiency:
     Remove the expired prohibition at Sec.  679.7(a)(17), 
specifying that neither catcher vessels nor catcher processors could 
act as a tender vessel until all groundfish or groundfish product was 
offloaded and that they could not harvest groundfish while operating as 
a

[[Page 7670]]

tender vessel. That prohibition was added as part of an emergency rule 
(66 FR 7276, January 22, 2001), which expired on July 17, 2001. To 
date, the regulation has not been removed. This proposed rule would 
remove the expired prohibition at Sec.  679.7(a)(17) to prevent 
confusion, especially as Sec.  679.7(a)(11) contains a similar 
prohibition.
     Regulations implementing EM for nontrawl vessels in the 
partial coverage category of the Observer Program are modified to 
remove the phrase ``EM selection pool'' and to add in its place 
``Nontrawl EM selection pool'' to clearly identify regulations 
applicable to the different EM categories. Multiple gear types, 
excluding trawl, participate in the nontrawl EM selection pool, while 
only trawl vessels are eligible for the trawl EM category.
     This proposed rule would move regulations specifying 
salmon sorting and handling practice from Sec.  679.21(f)(15)(ii)(C)(2) 
through (6) to proposed regulations at Sec.  679.28(g)(9) and (10). 
This move is necessary to consolidate all CMCP related regulations into 
a single location. This does not change the salmon sorting and handling 
requirements currently applicable to processors accepting AFA 
deliveries and it will allow the public to more easily locate all 
applicable CMCP regulations.
     Replace all instances of ``video data storage device'' 
with ``EM data'' in Sec.  679.51(f) to broaden the language to allow 
for future data formats.
     Remove fax numbers in Sec. Sec.  679.28(g) and 679.51(g) 
to match current practice that has abandoned fax usage. These numbers 
were for industry or observers to communicate with, and make requests 
of, the Observer Program. As technology has advanced, fax has fallen 
out of use and the proposed language should be more inclusive of new 
forms of communication.

Classification

    Pursuant to section 304(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS 
Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is 
consistent with the FMPs, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 
and other applicable law, subject to further consideration of comments 
received during the public comment period.
    This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for 
the purposes of Executive Order 12866.

Regulatory Impact Review

    A Regulatory Impact Review was prepared to assess the costs and 
benefits of available regulatory alternatives. A copy of this analysis 
is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES). The Council recommended and 
NMFS proposes these regulations based on those measures that maximize 
net benefits to the Nation.

Certification Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce 
certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business 
Administration that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    This proposed rule would directly regulate the owners and operators 
of catcher vessels and tender vessels in the trawl EM category, 
shoreside processors or stationary floating processors that receive EM 
deliveries, EM service providers and observer providers.
    Observers may also be indirectly impacted. Observers are 
individuals so they do not meet the Small Business Administration 
definition of a small entity. Therefore, observers are not considered 
directly regulated entities.
    For Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) purposes only, NMFS has 
established a small business size standard for businesses, including 
their affiliates, whose primary industry is commercial fishing (see 50 
CFR 200.2). A business primarily engaged in commercial fishing (NAICS 
code 11411) is classified as a small business if it is independently 
owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation 
(including its affiliates), and has combined annual receipts not in 
excess of $11 million for all its affiliated operations worldwide. 
Tender vessels, if owned by a processor, are considered together with 
the processor. Independently owned tender vessels (NAICS 424460) do not 
harvest or process fish and have a 100 employee small entity threshold 
(81 FR 4469, January 26, 2016). Shoreside processors and stationary 
floating processors fall under ``seafood product preparation and 
packaging'' (NAICS 31170) and have a small entity threshold of combined 
annual employment of fewer than 750 (81 FR 4469, January 26, 2016). 
Observer providers and EM service providers (NAICS 541990, ``other 
professional, scientific, and technical services'') have a threshold of 
$19.5 million in total annual revenue (87 FR 69118, November 17, 2022).
    Based on the thresholds defined above, and considering known 
cooperative affiliations, 26 catcher vessels, and 9 of the 12 tender 
vessels that participated in the pollock fishery during 2020, 2021, or 
2022 would be considered small entities. A total of 121 catcher vessels 
participated in the fishery during 2020 and 2021, or 2022. Of these, 73 
were AFA cooperative affiliated vessels considered to be large entities 
via their AFA affiliations. Three of these vessels participated in the 
whiting fishery and are cooperative affiliated large entities. 
Additionally, 2 vessels participated in the whiting and Rockfish 
Program, and 41 vessels participated in Rockfish Program cooperatives. 
A total of 26 vessels were not part of a cooperative and are classified 
as small entities. Based on the 750 employee threshold, 3 of the 11 
processors that took deliveries of pollock from catcher vessels from 
2020 through 2022 that are directly regulated would be considered small 
entities. Catcher/processors and motherships are not directly regulated 
by this action.
    Presently, there are two recognized EM service providers and three 
recognized observer providers operating in the North Pacific pollock 
fishery. One entity provides both observer and EM service. Thus, there 
are four unique entities within this category. There is not presently 
an information collection that documents revenue of these entities, 
thus, for purposes of the RFA, they are considered directly regulated 
small entities.
    Six CDQ entities receive allocations in the BS pollock fishery. 
Historically, these allocations have been harvested exclusively by 
catcher/processors that are not directly regulated by this action. 
However, the analysis contained in the Regulatory Impact Review 
acknowledges that these CDQ entities could choose to have their pollock 
allocations harvested by catcher vessels that would be directly 
regulated by this action. Some of the catcher vessels that could be 
used to harvest CDQ allocations are wholly owned by for-profit 
subsidiaries of these CDQ entities and are not considered to be small 
entities solely based on their CDQ affiliations. The analysis of 
revenue discussed above includes such vessels and the small entity 
count is based on estimated revenue versus the appropriate small entity 
threshold.
    NMFS anticipates that the trawl EM category would realize cost-
efficiencies in the monitoring program, particularly for the BS, and 
that cost efficiencies could be realized in the GOA as well. The 
Council recognized that this action will shift some impacts, costs, and 
responsibilities from the harvest sector to the shoreside processors 
and stationary floating processors, and will expand the use of CMCPs at 
processors. However, these potential shifts in cost are expected to be 
de minimis, and, further, the process for requesting to

[[Page 7671]]

participate in the trawl EM category is voluntary and development of 
the program was requested and supported by industry. As a voluntary 
program, entities would participate, and thus be directly regulated, 
only if there is a net benefit to them in doing so. This proposed rule 
would not increase the fees that NMFS collects from directly regulated 
entities in the partial coverage category. This proposed rule will 
implement a new fee for full coverage category. This new fee would be 
used by NMFS to pay for the costs of data review, storage, and 
transmission of EM data for vessels in the full coverage trawl EM 
category. The Analysis prepared for this action identifies the 
operational costs of participating in the trawl EM category (see 
ADDRESSES). Directly regulated small entities that individually judge 
the operational costs of participating in the trawl EM category to be 
burdensome could continue fishing under the existing human observer 
selection protocols, with no change in the amount of fees that they 
would be assessed. Therefore, this proposed rule would not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
As a result, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not 
required, and none has been prepared.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This proposed rule contains collection-of-information requirements 
subject to review and approval by the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). This proposed rule would 
revise existing collection-of information requirements for OMB Control 
Numbers 0648-0213 (Alaska Region Logbook and Activity Family of Forms); 
0648-0330 (NMFS Alaska Region Scale and Catch Weighing Requirements); 
0648-0515 (Alaska Interagency Electronic Reporting System); and 0648-
0711 (Alaska Cost Recovery and Fee Programs); and revise and extend 
0648-0318 (North Pacific Observer Program). Because of a concurrent 
action for 0648-0213, the revision to that collection of information 
for this proposed rule will be assigned a temporary control number that 
will later be merged into 0648-0213. OMB Control Numbers 0648-0812 
(Electronic Logbook: Pacific Cod Trawl Cooperative Program Catcher 
Vessels Less Than 60 Ft. LOA) and 0648-0815 (Bering Sea/Aleutian 
Islands Pot Gear Catcher/Processor Monitoring) are being merged into -
0515 and -0318, respectively, and -0812 and -0815 will be discontinued 
upon issuance of the final rule. The public reporting burden estimates 
provided below for the collections of information include the time for 
reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and 
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the 
collection of information.
OMB Control Number 0648-TEMPORARY
    This proposed rule would revise the collection of information under 
OMB Control Number 0648-0213, associated with paper logbooks. Due to a 
concurrent action for that collection, the collection-of-information 
requirements will be assigned a temporary control number that will 
later be merged into OMB Control Number 0648-0213. This proposed rule 
would require logbooks to be submitted by all catcher vessels in the 
trawl EM category. Catcher vessels in the trawl EM category may use 
either NMFS-approved paper logbooks (OMB Control Number 0648-0213) or 
electronic logbooks (OMB Control Number 0648-0515). Catcher vessels 
greater than 60 feet (18.3 meters) LOA already are required to maintain 
logbooks. Some catcher vessels less than 60 feet (18.3 meters) LOA that 
are not currently required to submit a logbook would need to begin 
doing so to participate in the trawl EM category; therefore, this 
proposed rule would increase the number of vessels required to submit a 
logbook. The temporary control number would cover the revisions 
necessary to -0213 for the catcher vessels that choose to submit paper 
logbooks. The public reporting burden per response is estimated to 
average 18 minutes for the Catcher Vessel Trawl Daily Fishing Logbook.
OMB Control Number 0648-0318
    NMFS proposes to revise and extend for three years the existing 
requirements for OMB Control Number 0648-0318, which is associated with 
the North Pacific Observer Program. Additionally, OMB Control Number 
0648-0815 is being merged into -0318 and will be discontinued upon 
issuance of the final rule. OMB Control Number 0648-0815 was 
established as a temporary collection (88 FR 77228, November 9, 2023) 
because -0318 was being revised by a concurrent action and was intended 
to be merged into -0318 following the completion of that action. OMB 
Control Number -0318 would be revised to include the following due to 
this proposed rule.
    The owner or operator of a catcher vessel or tender vessel would be 
required to use ODDS to request placement in the trawl EM category. 
Catcher vessels in the trawl EM category would be required to log all 
fishing trips in ODDS. The public reporting burden per response is 
estimated to average 5 minutes to submit the request through ODDS and 
15 minutes to log a fishing trip in ODDS.
    The vessel owner or operator of a catcher vessel or tender vessel 
in the trawl EM category would be required to submit a VMP to NMFS. The 
public reporting burden per response for the VMP is estimated to 
average 48 hours.
    Vessel operators in the trawl EM category would be required to 
submit EM data and associated documentation identified in their 
vessel's VMP to NMFS. The public reporting burden per response is 
estimated to average 1 hour.
    A catcher vessel owner or operator would be required to be a member 
of a TEM IPA to be approved for the trawl EM partial coverage category. 
The TEM IPA representative would submit the proposed TEM IPA to NMFS. 
The representative of each approved TEM IPA would be required to submit 
a written annual report to the Council. The public reporting burden per 
response is estimated to average 40 hours for the TEM IPA and 40 hours 
for the TEM IPA annual report.
    Prospective EM hardware service providers would need to apply, and 
be approved, for an EM hardware service provider permit. The public 
reporting burden per response for this permit is estimated to average 8 
hours.
    An administrative appeal may be submitted if NMFS would issue an 
IAD to deny a request to place a vessel in the trawl EM category, an 
IAD to disapprove a proposed TEM IPA, or and IAD for expiration of an 
EM hardware services provider permit. The public reporting burden per 
response for an administrative appeal is estimated to average 4 hours.
    The submission time of the observer deployment/logistics report 
would be changed to within 24 hours of the observer assignment or daily 
by 4:30 p.m., Pacific Time, each business day with regard to each 
observer. Fax would be removed as a submission method for this report, 
and this proposed rule would allow any other method specified by NMFS. 
This report would no longer be required to include the location of any 
observer employed by the observer provider who is not assigned to a 
vessel, shoreside processor, or stationary floating processor. These 
changes are not expected to change the average response time for this 
report. The public reporting burden per response is estimated to 
average 7 minutes.
    This proposed rule would allow for electronic submission of the 
reports that are submitted by an observer provider and used by NMFS to 
monitor and

[[Page 7672]]

enforce standards of observer conduct and identify problems on 
deployments that may compromise the observer's health or well-being 
otherwise. This proposed rule would also require the provider's 
responses to the violation in the report submitted by an observer 
provider for an observer who violated the observer provider's policy on 
conduct and behavior. These changes are not expected to change the 
average response time for these reports. The public reporting burden 
per response is estimated to average 2 hours.
    This proposed rule would remove fax as an electronic communication 
method and allow other methods specified by NMFS for other observer 
provider responsibilities. The public reporting burden per response to 
these requirements is estimated to average 60 hours for the observer 
provider permit application; 8 hours for college transcripts; 1 hour 
for observer training registration; 7 minutes each for observer 
briefing registration and projected observer assignments; 5 minutes 
each for physical examination verification and updates to observer 
provider information; 12 minutes for certificates of insurance; and 30 
minutes each for observer debriefing registration, observer provider 
contracts, and observer provider invoices.
OMB Control Number 0648-0330
    The information collection for 0648-0330 would be revised because 
this proposed rule would require all shoreside processors and 
stationary floating processors receiving pollock from vessels in the 
trawl EM category to have NMFS-approved CMCPs in place before receiving 
deliveries from catcher vessels or tender vessels in the trawl EM 
category. Some processors that do not currently submit a CMCP would 
need to begin doing so; therefore, this would increase the number of 
respondents that submit a CMCP. The public reporting burden per 
response is estimated to average 40 hours for the new participants 
required to submit a CMCP and initially in the first two years after 
implementation for existing CMCPs, but in the following years the 
burden would be reduced.
OMB Control Number 0648-0515
    The information collection for 0648-0515 would be revised due to 
this proposed rule. Additionally, OMB Control Number 0648-0812 is being 
merged into -0515 and will be discontinued upon issuance of the final 
rule. OMB Control Number 0648-0812 was established as a temporary 
collection (88 FR 53704, August 8, 2023) because -0515 was being 
revised by concurrent actions and was intended to be merged into -0515 
following the completion of those actions. This proposed rule would 
require logbooks to be submitted by all catcher vessels in the trawl EM 
category. Catcher vessels in the trawl EM category may use either NMFS-
approved electronic logbooks (OMB Control Number 0648-0515) or paper 
logbooks (OMB Control Number 0648-0213). Catcher vessels greater than 
60 feet (18.3 meters) LOA already are required to maintain logbooks. 
Some catcher vessels less than 60 feet (18.3 meters) LOA that are not 
currently required to submit a logbook would need to begin doing so to 
participate in the trawl EM category; therefore, this proposed rule 
would increase the number of vessels required to submit a logbook. The 
revision to this collection of information due to the rule adds the 
catcher vessels less than 60 feet (18.3 meters) LOA that choose to 
submit electronic logbooks. The public reporting burden per response is 
estimated to average 15 minutes for the Catcher Vessel Electronic 
Logbook.
OMB Control Number 0648-0711
    The information collection for 0648-0711 would be revised because 
this proposed rule would require the owner of a catcher vessel in the 
full coverage trawl EM category to submit the new full coverage trawl 
EM fee. The public reporting burden per response is estimated to 
average 1 minute for the fee payment.

Public Comment

    Public comment is sought regarding: whether this proposed 
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of 
the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall 
have practical utility; the accuracy of the burden estimate; ways to 
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be 
collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of 
information, including through the use of automated collection 
techniques or other forms of information technology. Submit comments on 
these or any other aspects of the collection of information at https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain.
    Notwithstanding any other provisions of the law, no person is 
required to respond or, nor shall any person by subject to a penalty 
for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the 
requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays 
a currently valid OMB control number.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 679

    Alaska, Fisheries, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: January 26, 2024.
Samuel D. Rauch, III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS proposes to amend 50 
CFR part 679 as follows:

PART 679--FISHERIES OF THE EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE OFF ALASKA

0
1. The authority citation for part 679 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  16 U.S.C. 773 et seq.; 1801 et seq.; 3631 et seq.; 
Pub. L. 108-447; Pub. L. 111-281.
0
2. Amend Sec.  679.2 by:
0
a. Removing the definition of ``EM selection pool'';
0
b. Revising the definition of ``EM service provider'' and paragraph 
(3)(iv) of the definition of ``Fishing trip''; and
0
c. Adding in alphabetical order definitions of ``Nontrawl EM selection 
pool'', ``Trawl EM category'', and ``Trawl EM Incentive Plan Agreement 
(TEM IPA)''.
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  679.2   Definitions.

* * * * *
    EM service provider means any person, including their employees or 
agents, that NMFS contracts with, or grants an EM hardware service 
provider permit to under Sec.  679.52(d), to provide EM services, or to 
collect, review, interpret, or analyze EM data, as required under Sec.  
679.51. The two types of EM service providers are as follows:
    (1) EM hardware service provider is a provider that NMFS grants a 
permit under Sec.  679.52(d) and is authorized to deploy and service EM 
hardware aboard vessels in an EM category as specified in Sec.  679.51.
    (2) EM data review service provider is a provider that NMFS 
contracts with, or otherwise has an established business relationship 
with, to review, interpret, or analyze EM data as required under Sec.  
679.51.
* * * * *
    Fishing trip means:
* * * * *
    (3) * * *
    (iv) For a vessel in any EM category, the period of time that 
begins when the vessel with an empty hold departs a port or tender 
vessel until the vessel

[[Page 7673]]

returns to a port or tender vessel and offloads or delivers all fish.
* * * * *
    Nontrawl EM selection pool means the defined group of vessels from 
which NMFS will randomly select the vessels required to use an EM 
system under Sec.  679.51(f).
* * * * *
    Trawl EM category means the defined group of catcher vessels and 
tender vessels with a NMFS-approved VMP that are required to use an EM 
system as specified under Sec.  679.51(g)(1).
    Trawl EM Incentive Plan Agreement (TEM IPA) means a voluntary 
private contract in writing, approved by NMFS under Sec.  679.57, that 
establishes incentives for partial coverage catcher vessels in the 
trawl EM category to keep catch within the limits to which vessels not 
in the trawl EM category are subject. These limits include the catcher 
vessel harvest limit for pollock in the Gulf of Alaska (Sec.  
679.7(b)(2)) and MRAs (Sec.  679.20(e)).
* * * * *
0
3. Amend Sec.  679.5 by adding paragraph (a)(1)(iii)(H) and revising 
paragraph (a)(4)(i) to read as follows:


Sec.  679.5   Recordkeeping and reporting (R&R).

    (a) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (iii) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             For more
    If harvest made under . . .       Record the . . .     information,
              program                                        see . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                              * * * * * * *
(H) Trawl EM Category (TEM).......  Management program     Sec.   679.51
                                     modifier as TEM.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
    (4) * * *
    (i) Catcher vessels less than 60 ft (18.3 m) LOA. The owner and 
operator of a catcher vessel less than 60 ft (18.3 m) LOA are required 
to comply with the vessel activity report described at paragraph (k) of 
this section, but otherwise are not required to comply with the R&R 
requirements of this section, except for:
    (A) Vessels using pot gear as described in paragraph 
(c)(3)(i)(B)(1) of this section;
    (B) Vessels participating in the PCTC Program as described in 
paragraph (x) of this section; and
    (C) Catcher vessels in the trawl EM category as described in Sec.  
679.51(g).
* * * * *
0
4. Amend Sec.  679.7 by adding paragraph (a)(11)(iii), revising 
paragraphs (a)(14) and (a)(16), removing and reserving paragraph 
(a)(17), and revising paragraphs (b)(2)(i) through (iii), and (j).
    The addition and revisions read as follows:


Sec.  679.7   Prohibitions.

    (a) * * *
    (11) * * *
    (iii) Tender vessel. Use a catcher vessel or catcher/processor to 
harvest groundfish while operating as a tender vessel.
* * * * *
    (14) Trawl gear performance standard--(i) BSAI. Except for catcher 
vessels in the trawl EM category, use a vessel to participate in a 
directed fishery for pollock using trawl gear and have on board the 
vessel, at any particular time, 20 or more crabs of any species that 
have a carapace width of more than 1.5 inches (38 mm) at the widest 
dimension.
    (ii) GOA. Except for catcher vessels in the trawl EM category, use 
a vessel to participate in a directed fishery for pollock using trawl 
gear when directed fishing for pollock with nonpelagic trawl gear is 
closed and have on board the vessel, at any particular time, 20 or more 
crabs of any species that have a carapace width of more than 1.5 inches 
(38 mm) at the widest dimension.
* * * * *
    (16) Retention of groundfish bycatch species. Except for catcher 
vessels in the trawl EM category, exceed the maximum retainable amount 
established under Sec.  679.20(e).
* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (i) Except for catcher vessels in the trawl EM category, retain 
more than 300,000 lb (136 mt) of unprocessed pollock on board a catcher 
vessel issued a FFP at any time during a fishing trip as defined at 
Sec.  679.2;
    (ii) Except for catcher vessels in the trawl EM category, land more 
than 300,000 lb (136 mt) of unprocessed pollock harvested in any GOA 
reporting area from a catcher vessel issued a FFP to any processor or 
tender vessel during a calendar day as defined at Sec.  679.2; and
    (iii) Except for catcher vessels in the trawl EM category, land a 
cumulative amount of unprocessed pollock harvested from any GOA 
reporting area from a catcher vessel issued a FFP during a directed 
fishery that exceeds the amount in paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this section 
multiplied by the number of calendar days that occur during the time 
period the directed fishery is open in that reporting area.
* * * * *
    (j) North Pacific Observer Program--Electronic Monitoring--(1) 
General. (i) Fish without an EM system when a vessel is required to 
carry an EM system under Sec.  679.51.
    (ii) Fish with an EM system without a copy of a valid NMFS-approved 
VMP on board when directed fishing in a fishery subject to EM coverage.
    (iii) Fail to comply with a NMFS-approved VMP when directed fishing 
in a fishery subject to EM coverage.
    (iv) Fail to ensure an EM system is functioning prior to departing 
port on a fishing trip as specified at Sec.  679.51(f)(5)(vi)(A).
    (v) Fail to ensure an EM system is functional prior to departing on 
a fishing trip as specified at Sec.  679.51(g)(3)(v).
    (vi) Depart on a fishing trip without a functional EM system, per 
the VMP, unless approved to do so by NMFS, after the procedures at 
Sec.  679.51(f)(5)(vi)(A)(1), or Sec.  679.51(g), have been followed.
    (vii) Fail to follow procedures related to EM system malfunctions 
as described at Sec.  679.51(f)(5)(vi)(B) or Sec.  679.51(g) prior to 
deploying each set of gear on a fishing trip selected for EM coverage.
    (viii) Fail to make the EM system, associated equipment, logbooks, 
and other records available for inspection upon request by NMFS, OLE, 
or other NMFS-authorized officer.
    (ix) Fail to submit EM data as specified under Sec.  
679.51(f)(5)(vii) or Sec.  679.51(g).
    (x) Tamper with, bias, disconnect, damage, destroy, alter, or in 
any other way distort, render useless, inoperative, ineffective, or 
inaccurate any component of the EM system, associated equipment, or 
data recorded by the EM system when the vessel is directed fishing in a 
fishery subject to EM coverage, unless the vessel operator is directed 
to make changes to the EM system by NMFS, the EM service

[[Page 7674]]

provider, or as directed in the troubleshooting guide of the VMP.
    (xi) Assault, impede, intimidate, harass, sexually harass, bribe, 
or interfere with an EM service provider.
    (xii) Interfere with or bias the sampling procedure employed in the 
EM selection pool, including either mechanically or manually sorting or 
discarding catch outside of the camera view or inconsistent with the 
NMFS-approved VMP.
    (xiii) Fail to meet the vessel owner and operator responsibilities 
when using an EM system as specified at Sec.  679.51(f)(5) or Sec.  
679.51(g)(5).
    (2) Trawl EM category--(i) Catcher vessels in the trawl EM 
category. (A) Use a catcher vessel in the partial coverage trawl EM 
category to fish without being party to an approved trawl EM incentive 
plan agreement established under Sec.  679.57;
    (B) Use a catcher vessel in the trawl EM category to discard catch 
from the codend before it is brought on board the vessel unless 
required to maintain the safety and stability of the vessel. This 
includes ``codend dumping'' or ``codend bleeding'';
    (C) Use a catcher vessel in the trawl EM category to deploy 
nonpelagic trawl gear;
    (D) Use a catcher vessel in the trawl EM category to land catch to 
a tender vessel that is not in the trawl EM category or does not have a 
NMFS-approved VMP; or
    (E) Use a catcher vessel in the trawl EM category to land catch to 
a shoreside processor or stationary floating processor that does not 
have a NMFS-approved CMCP.
    (ii) Shoreside processors and stationary floating processors. (A) 
Receive any delivery from a vessel in the trawl EM category without 
being issued and following a NMFS-approved Catch Monitoring Control 
Plan as described in Sec.  679.28(g).
    (B) Store any non-salmon species in a designated salmon storage 
container as described in a NMFS-approved Catch Monitoring Control Plan 
per Sec.  679.28(g).
    (C) Allow any salmon species to be placed into any location other 
than the designated salmon storage container described in a NMFS-
approved Catch Monitoring Control Plan per Sec.  679.28(g) at a 
shoreside processor or stationary floating processor.
    (D) Begin sorting a trawl EM category offload before an observer 
has completed the count of all salmon and the collection of scientific 
data and biological samples from the previous offload.
    (E) Continue to sort trawl EM category catch if the salmon storage 
container described in a NMFS-approved Catch Monitoring Control Plan 
per Sec.  679.28(g) is full.
    (F) Allow any PSC harvested or delivered by a vessel in the trawl 
EM category to be sold, purchased, bartered, or traded.
    (iii) Tender vessels. (A) Operate a tender vessel in the trawl EM 
category and receive a delivery from a catcher vessel in the trawl EM 
category and a catcher vessel not in the trawl EM category during the 
same fishing trip.
    (B) Operate a tender vessel in the trawl EM category and receive a 
delivery from a catcher vessel in the trawl EM category without an 
approved VMP.
* * * * *
0
5. Amend Sec.  679.20 by revising paragraph (d)(2) to read as follows:


Sec.  679.20   General limitations.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (2) Groundfish as prohibited species closure. When the Regional 
Administrator determines that the TAC of any target species specified 
under paragraph (c) of this section, or the share of any TAC assigned 
to any type of gear, has been or will be achieved prior to the end of a 
year, NMFS will publish notification in the Federal Register requiring 
that target species be treated in the same manner as a prohibited 
species, as described under Sec.  679.21(a), for the remainder of the 
year, except:
    (i) Rockfish species caught by catcher vessels using hook-and-line, 
pot, or jig gear as described in paragraph (j) of this section; and
    (ii) Catcher vessels in the trawl EM category.
* * * * *
0
6. Amend Sec.  679.21 by adding paragraph (a)(2)(ii)(A), adding 
reserved paragraph (a)(2)(ii)(B), and revising paragraph (f)(15)(ii)(C) 
to read as follows:


Sec.  679.21   Prohibited species bycatch management.

    (a) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (A) Vessels in the trawl EM category must retain all prohibited 
species catch for sampling by an observer.
* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (15) * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (C) Shoreside processors and stationary floating processors must 
comply with the requirements in Sec.  679.28(g)(9) and (10) for the 
receipt, sorting, and storage of salmon from deliveries of catch from 
the BS pollock fishery.
* * * * *
0
7. Amend Sec.  679.28 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (d)(10)(i) and (g)(1);
0
b. Adding paragraph (g)(2)(iv);
0
c. Revising paragraphs (g)(3) through (6), (g)(7) introductory text, 
and (g)(7)(v);
0
d. Removing paragraph (g)(7)(vi)(C);
0
e. Revising paragraphs (g)(7)(vii) through (xi); and
0
f. Adding paragraphs (g)(8) through (10).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  679.28   Equipment and operational requirements.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (10) * * *
    (i) How does a vessel owner arrange for an observer sampling 
station inspection? The vessel owner must submit an Inspection Request 
for Observer Sampling Station with all the information fields 
accurately filled in to NMFS by emailing 
([email protected]), or completing the online request form, 
at least 10 working days in advance of the requested date of 
inspection. The request form is available on the NMFS Alaska Region 
website.
* * * * *
    (g) * * *
    (1) What is a CMCP? A CMCP is a plan submitted by the owner and 
manager of a processing plant, and approved by NMFS, detailing how the 
processor will meet the applicable catch monitoring and control 
standards detailed in paragraphs (g)(7) through (10) of this section.
    (2) * * *
    (iv) Any shoreside or stationary floating processor receiving any 
delivery from catcher vessels or tender vessels in the trawl EM 
category as defined at Sec.  679.2.
    (3) How is a CMCP approved by NMFS? NMFS will approve a CMCP if it 
meets all the applicable requirements specified in paragraphs (g)(7) 
through (10) of this section. The processor may be inspected by NMFS 
prior to approval of the CMCP to ensure that the processor conforms to 
the elements addressed in the CMCP. NMFS will complete its review of 
the CMCP within 14 working days of receipt. If NMFS disapproves a CMCP, 
the plant owner or manager may resubmit a revised CMCP or file an 
administrative appeal as set forth under the administrative appeals 
procedures described at Sec.  679.43.
    (4) How is a CMCP inspection arranged? The processor must submit a 
request for a CMCP inspection. The time

[[Page 7675]]

and place of a CMCP inspection may be arranged by submitting a written 
request to NMFS, Alaska Region, or other method of electronic 
communication designated by NMFS. NMFS will review the inspection 
request within 10 working days after receiving a complete application 
for an inspection. The inspection request must include:
    (i) Name of the person submitting the application and the date of 
the application;
    (ii) Address, telephone number, and email address of the person 
submitting the application;
    (iii) A proposed CMCP detailing how the processor will meet each of 
the applicable performance standards in paragraphs (g)(7) through (10) 
of this section.
    (5) For how long is a CMCP approved? NMFS will approve a CMCP for 1 
year if it meets the applicable performance standards specified in 
paragraphs (g)(7) through (10) of this section. An owner or manager 
must notify NMFS in writing if changes are made in plant operations or 
layout that do not conform to the CMCP.
    (6) How do I make changes to my CMCP? An owner and manager may 
change an approved CMCP by submitting a CMCP addendum to NMFS. NMFS 
will approve the modified CMCP if it continues to meet the applicable 
performance standards specified in paragraphs (g)(7) through (10) of 
this section. Depending on the nature and magnitude of the change 
requested, NMFS may require a CMCP inspection as described in paragraph 
(g)(3) of this section. A CMCP addendum must contain:
    (i) Name of the person submitting the addendum;
    (ii) Address, telephone number, and email address of the person 
submitting the addendum; and
    (iii) A complete description of the proposed CMCP change.
    (7) Catch monitoring and control standards. For all shoreside 
processors or stationary floating processors accepting any delivery 
from the fisheries listed in paragraph (g)(2) of this section:
* * * * *
    (v) Delivery point. Each CMCP must identify a single delivery 
point. The delivery point is the first location where fish removed from 
a delivering catcher vessel can be sorted or diverted to more than one 
location. If the catch is pumped from the hold of a catcher vessel or a 
codend, the delivery point normally will be the location where the pump 
first discharges the catch. If catch is removed from a vessel by 
brailing, the delivery point normally will be the bin or belt where the 
brailer discharges the catch. The CMCP must describe how the catch will 
be offloaded at the delivery point.
* * * * *
    (vii) Scale Drawing of the Plant. The CMCP must be accompanied by a 
scale drawing of the plant showing:
    (A) The delivery point;
    (B) Flow of fish;
    (C) The observation area;
    (D) The observer sampling station described in paragraph (g)(7)(ix) 
of this section;
    (E) The location of each scale used to weigh catch;
    (F) Each location where catch is sorted including the last location 
where sorting could occur; and
    (G) Information to meet other requirements of this part, if 
requested by NMFS.
    (viii) Reasonable assistance. Shoreside processors and stationary 
floating processors must provide reasonable assistance as described in 
Sec.  679.51(e)(2)(vi), to observer(s) and to the Rockfish CMCP 
specialist. The CMCP must identify staff responsible for ensuring 
reasonable assistance is provided.
    (ix) Observer sampling station. Each CMCP, except for the Rockfish 
Program, must identify and include an observer(s) sampling station for 
the exclusive use of observer(s). Unless otherwise approved by NMFS, 
the sampling station must meet the following criteria:
    (A) Location of observer sampling station. (1) The observer 
sampling station must be located in an area protected from the weather 
where the observer has access to unsorted catch.
    (2) The observer sampling station must be adjacent to the location 
where salmon will be counted and biological samples or scientific data 
are collected.
    (3) Clear, unobstructed passage must be provided between the 
observer sampling station and observer sample collection point. The 
observer(s) must be able to monitor the collection and transport of 
unsorted catch to the observer sampling station.
    (B) Proximity of observer sampling station. The observer sampling 
station must be located within 4 meters of the observer sample 
collection point without encountering safety hazards, or, reasonable 
assistance must be given to move samples into the observer sampling 
station upon request.
    (C) Minimum workspace requirements. The observer sampling station 
must include: A working area of at least 4.5 square meters. The 
observer(s) must be able to stand upright and have a sampling area at 
least 0.9 meters deep in front of the table and scale.
    (D) Clear, unobstructed passage. A clear and unobstructed passage 
is required between the observer sample collection point and sampling 
station, and within the observer sampling station. Passageways must be 
at least 65 centimeters wide at their narrowest point, and be free of 
tripping or head bumping hazards.
    (E) Table. The observer sampling station must include a table at 
least 0.6 meters deep, 1.2 meters wide, 0.9 meters high, and no more 
than 1.1 meters high. The entire surface area of the table must be 
available for use by the observer(s). Any area used for the observer 
sampling scale is in addition to the minimum space requirements for the 
table specified at paragraph (g)(7)(ix)(B) of this section. The 
observer sampling table must be secure, and stable.
    (F) Observer Platform scale. The observer sampling station must 
include a platform scale as described in paragraph (c)(4) of this 
section, and must meet the requirements specified in paragraph 
(c)(3)(v) of this section when tested by the observer. The platform 
scale must be located within 1 meter of the observer sampling table. 
The scale must be mounted so that the weighing surface is no more than 
0.7 meters above the floor.
    (G) Lockable cabinet. The observer work station must include a 
secure and lockable cabinet or locker of at least 0.5 cubic meters, and 
must be for the exclusive use of the observer(s).
    (x) Communication with observer. The CMCP, except for the Rockfish 
Program, must describe what communication equipment such as radios or 
cellular phones is used to facilitate communications within the plant. 
The plant owner must ensure that the plant manager provides the 
observer(s) with the same communications equipment used by plant staff. 
The plant owner or plant manager must communicate the following 
information to the observer(s), including:
    (A) Daily schedule of expected landings;
    (B) Vessel name;
    (C) Identify which management areas the vessel was operating in;
    (D) If the delivering vessel is operating under the trawl EM 
category;
    (E) Estimated tonnage onboard the vessel;
    (F) If there is a deckload;
    (G) Estimated time of arrival;
    (H) Estimated time to complete the offload;
    (I) If the vessel offload will be interrupted for any reason; and

[[Page 7676]]

    (J) Any other information required by the applicable CMCP or VMP.
    (xi) Plant liaison. The CMCP must designate a plant liaison. The 
plant liaison is responsible for:
    (A) Orienting new observer(s) to the plant and providing a copy of 
the NMFS-approved CMCP and any subsequent addendums or revisions; and
    (B) Assisting in the resolution of observer(s) concerns.
* * * * *
    (8) Rockfish Program. In addition to compliance with requirements 
set forth at paragraph (g)(7) of this section, all shoreside processors 
or stationary floating processors receiving deliveries of groundfish 
harvested under the authority of a rockfish CQ permit must:
    (i) Rockfish CMCP specialist notification. Describe how the 
Rockfish CMCP specialist will be notified of deliveries of groundfish 
harvested under the authority of a rockfish CQ permit.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (9) Processors receiving AFA pollock, CDQ pollock, and trawl EM 
category deliveries. In addition to compliance with requirements set 
forth at paragraph (g)(7) of this section, all shoreside processors and 
stationary floating processors receiving deliveries from the fisheries 
described in paragraphs (g)(2)(i),(ii), and (iv) of this section, must 
comply with the following:
    (i) Salmon storage container. (A) A salmon storage container must 
be designated for the exclusive purpose of storing salmon during an 
offload;
    (B) The observer(s) must have a clear, unobstructed view of the 
salmon storage container to ensure no salmon of any species are removed 
without the observer's knowledge;
    (C) The CMCP must describe the process of sorting and storing 
salmon; and
    (D) The scale drawing of the plant must include the location of the 
salmon storage container.
    (ii) Salmon sorting and handling practices. (A) Sort and transport 
all salmon to the salmon storage container identified in the CMCP (see 
paragraphs (g)(7)(vi)(C) and (g)(7)(x)(F) of this section). The salmon 
must remain in that salmon storage container and within the view of the 
observer(s) at all times during the offload;
    (B) If, at any point during the offload, salmon are too numerous to 
be contained in the salmon storage container, cease the offload and all 
sorting and give the observer(s) the opportunity to count and collect 
scientific data or biological samples from all salmon in the storage 
bin. The counted salmon then must be removed from the area by plant 
personnel in the presence of the observer(s);
    (C) At the completion of the offload, give the observer(s) the 
opportunity to count the salmon and collect scientific data or 
biological samples; and
    (D) Before sorting of the next offload of any catch may begin, give 
the observer(s) the opportunity to complete the count of salmon and the 
collection of scientific data or biological samples from the previous 
offload of catch. When the observer(s) has completed all counting and 
sampling duties for the offload, plant personnel must remove the salmon 
in the presence of the observer(s), from the salmon storage container 
and location where salmon are counted and biological samples or 
scientific data are collected.
    (iii) Observer sample collection point. The observer sample 
collection point is the location where the observer collects unsorted 
catch.
    (A) The observer sample collection point (see paragraph 
(g)(7)(ix)(A)(3) of this section) must have a diverter mechanism to 
allow fish to be diverted from the belt directly into the observer's 
sampling baskets. The location and design of the diverter mechanism 
must be described in the CMCP; and
    (B) The scale drawing of the plant, specified at paragraph 
(g)(7)(vii) of this section, must include the location of the observer 
sample collection point.
    (iv) Observer sampling scales and test weights. (A) Identify by 
serial number each observer sampling scale in the CMCP;
    (B) Provide observer sampling scales that are accurate and within 
the limits specified in paragraph (c)(4)(v) of this section;
    (C) Test weights must be made available for the observer(s) use, be 
kept in good condition, be made of stainless steel or other corrosion-
resistant material, and must meet requirements specified in paragraph 
(C)(4)(iii) of this section;
    (D) List the serial numbers of the test weights to be used to test 
the observer sampling scale in the CMCP; and
    (E) The CMCP must identify where the test weights will be stored. 
Test weights must be stored within the observer sampling station or 
reasonable assistance must be provided upon observer(s) request to move 
the weights form the storage location to the observer sampling scale.
    (10) AFA pollock and CDQ pollock. In addition to paragraphs (g)(7) 
and (9) of this section, all shoreside processors and stationary 
floating processors accepting deliveries described in paragraph 
(g)(2)(i) of this section have the following additional requirements:
    (i) Ensure no salmon of any species pass beyond the last point 
where sorting of fish occurs, as identified in the scale drawing of the 
plant, paragraph (g)(7)(vii) of this section, in the CMCP; and
    (ii) The CMCP must describe the process that will be used to sort 
salmon, including the procedures for handling salmon that have passed 
beyond the last point where sorting of fish occurs;
    (iii) Meet all salmon handling requirements as described in (g)(9) 
of this section.
* * * * *
0
8. Amend Sec.  679.51 by:
0
a. Removing the words ``NMFS Alaska Region website at https://
alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/'', ``NMFS Alaska Region website https://
alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/'', ``NMFS Alaska Region website at http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov'', ``NMFS Alaska Region website http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov'', and ``NMFS Alaska Region website (http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov)'' wherever they appear, and adding, in their 
place, the words ``NMFS Alaska Region website'';
0
b. Adding paragraph (a)(1)(iv);
0
c. Revising paragraphs (a)(2)(ii) and (b)(2)(i);
0
d. Adding paragraph (b)(3);
0
e. In paragraph (c)(3), removing the phrase ``transmitted by facsimile 
to 206-526-4066'' and adding, in its place, the phrase ``other method 
specified by NMFS on the NMFS Observer Program website'';
0
f. In paragraph (f), removing the words ``EM selection pool'' wherever 
they appear and adding, in their place, the words ``nontrawl EM 
selection pool'';
0
g. Revising paragraph (f)(2) introductory text;
0
h. In paragraph (f)(3)(ii), removing the phrase ``the video data 
storage devices'' and adding in its place the phrase ``EM data'';
0
i. Revising paragraph (f)(4)(v);
0
j. Adding paragraph (f)(4)(vi);
0
k. In paragraph (f)(5)(vii), removing the phrase ``the video data 
storage device'' and adding, in its place, the words ``EM data''; and
0
l. Adding paragraph (g).
    The additions and revisions read as follows:


Sec.  679.51   Observer and Electronic Monitoring System requirements 
for vessels and plants.

    (a) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (iv) Observer workload at shoreside processors and stationary 
floating

[[Page 7677]]

processors. Regarding shoreside processors and stationary floating 
processors, the time required for an observer to complete sampling, 
data recording, and data communication duties, per this paragraph 
(a)(1), may not exceed 12 hours in each 24-hour period.
    (2) * * *
    (ii) Observer coverage requirements. A vessel listed in paragraphs 
(a)(2)(i)(A) through (C) of this section must have at least one 
observer aboard the vessel at all times. Some fisheries require 
additional observer coverage in accordance with paragraph (a)(2)(vi) of 
this section. The following exceptions apply:
    (A) A vessel subject to the partial observer coverage category as 
per paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section;
    (B) A vessel approved to be in the full coverage trawl EM category; 
vessels in the full coverage trawl EM category are subject to observer 
coverage if NMFS determines that at-sea coverage is necessary in the 
Annual Deployment Plan.
* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (i) Coverage level. (A) An AFA inshore processor must provide an 
observer for each 12-consecutive-hour period of each calendar day 
during which the processor takes delivery of, or processes, groundfish 
harvested by a vessel engaged in a directed pollock fishery in the BS. 
An AFA inshore processor that, for more than 12 consecutive hours in a 
calendar day, takes delivery of or processes pollock harvested in the 
BS directed pollock fishery must provide two observers for each such 
day.
    (B) The owner and operator of an AFA shoreside or stationary 
floating processor receiving deliveries from a catcher vessel in the 
trawl EM category must provide the necessary number of observers to 
meet the criteria prescribed by NMFS in the Annual Deployment Plan for 
each calendar day during which the processor takes delivery of, or 
processes, groundfish harvested by a vessel engaged in a directed 
pollock fishery in the BS.
* * * * *
    (3) Shoreside processor and stationary floating processor receiving 
a delivery from catcher or tender vessels in the trawl EM category--(i) 
Deadline to submit a request to receive trawl EM deliveries. A 
shoreside processor and stationary floating processor must submit a 
request to NMFS by November 1 of the year prior to the fishing year in 
which they intend to receive deliveries from catcher vessels or tender 
vessels in the trawl EM category.
    (ii) [Reserved]
* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (2) Notification of nontrawl EM trip selection.
* * * * *
    (4) * * *
    (v) If, at any time, changes are required to the VMP to improve the 
data collection of the EM system or address fishing operation changes, 
the vessel owner or operator must work with NMFS and the EM service 
provider to amend the VMP. The vessel owner or operator must sign the 
amended VMP and submit these changes to the VMP to NMFS prior to 
departing on the next fishing trip selected for EM coverage.
    (vi) The VMP will require information regarding:
    (A) Vessel and contact information;
    (B) Gear used;
    (C) EM hardware functionality requirements;
    (D) Requirements for meeting program objectives as specified in the 
Annual Deployment Plan;
    (E) List of potential solutions for hardware malfunctions;
    (F) Images of camera locations and camera views;
    (G) EM hardware service provider information;
    (H) Valid signatures from the EM hardware service provider and 
vessel owner or operator; and
    (I) Any other information required by the applicable VMP.
* * * * *
    (g) Trawl EM category--(1) Vessel placement in the trawl EM 
category--(i) Applicability. (A) The owner or operator of a catcher 
vessel with a pollock trawl endorsement (PTW) on their FFP in the 
partial coverage category under paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section, or 
in the full coverage category in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section, 
may request to be placed in the trawl EM category.
    (1) Partial coverage trawl EM category. Catcher vessels targeting 
pollock with pelagic trawl gear in the GOA or AI fisheries.
    (2) Full coverage trawl EM category. Catcher vessels targeting 
pollock with pelagic trawl gear in the BS or CDQ fisheries.
    (B) The owner or operator of a tender vessel must request to be 
placed in the trawl EM category before receiving a delivery from a 
catcher vessel in the trawl EM category.
    (ii) How to request placement in the trawl EM category. The owner 
or operator of a vessel must complete the trawl EM category request and 
submit it to NMFS using ODDS. Access to ODDS is available through the 
NMFS Alaska Region website. ODDS is described in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) 
of this section.
    (iii) Deadline to submit a trawl EM category request. A vessel 
owner or operator must submit an annual trawl EM category request in 
ODDS by November 1 of the year prior to the fishing year in which the 
vessel would be placed in the trawl EM category.
    (iv) Approval for placement in the trawl EM category. NMFS may 
approve a vessel for placement in the trawl EM category based on 
criteria specified by NMFS in the Annual Deployment Plan, available 
through the NMFS Alaska Region website. Criteria for disapproval may 
include actions by the vessel leading to data gaps, noncompliance with 
program elements such as discarding of catch, vessel configuration or 
fishing practices that cannot provide the necessary camera views to 
meet data collection goals, failure to follow the trawl EM category 
VMP, and/or failure to adhere to an incentive plan agreement as 
specified in Sec.  679.57 for partial coverage catcher vessels, or 
Sec.  679.21(f)(12) for full coverage catcher vessels. For the trawl EM 
application to be considered complete, all fees due to NMFS from the 
owner or authorized representative of a catcher vessel subject to the 
fees specified at Sec.  679.56 at the time of application must be paid.
    (v) Notification of approval for placement in the trawl EM 
category. (A) NMFS will notify the owner or operator through ODDS of 
approval for the trawl EM category for the following fishing year. 
Catcher vessels remain subject to observer coverage under paragraphs 
(a)(1)(i) or (a)(2)(i) of this section unless and until NMFS approves 
the request for placement of the catcher vessel in the trawl EM 
category.
    (B) Once NMFS notifies the vessel owner or operator that their 
request to be placed in the trawl EM category has been approved, the 
vessel owner or operator must comply with the responsibilities in 
paragraphs (g)(2) and (3) of this section and all further instructions 
set forth in ODDS.
    (vi) Initial Administrative Determination (IAD). If NMFS denies a 
request to place a vessel in the trawl EM category, NMFS will provide 
an IAD to the vessel owner, which will explain the basis for the 
denial.
    (vii) Appeal. If the vessel owner wishes to appeal NMFS's denial of 
a request to place the vessel in the trawl EM category, the owner may 
appeal the determination under the appeals procedure set out at 15 CFR 
part 906.
    (viii) Duration. Once NMFS approves a vessel for placement in the 
trawl EM

[[Page 7678]]

category, that vessel will remain in the trawl EM category for the 
following upcoming fishing year or until:
    (A) NMFS disapproves the vessel's VMP under paragraph (g)(2) of 
this section; or
    (B) The vessel no longer meets the trawl EM category criteria 
specified by NMFS.
    (ix) Procurement of EM services--(A) Partial coverage category. The 
owner or operator of a vessel approved for the trawl EM category must 
use the EM hardware service provider as outlined by NMFS in the Annual 
Deployment Plan.
    (B) Full coverage category. The owner or operator of a vessel 
approved for the trawl EM category must arrange and pay for EM service 
provider services from a permitted EM hardware service provider.
    (2) Vessel Monitoring Plan (VMP). Once approved for the trawl EM 
category, and prior to the first trawl EM fishing trip in the fishing 
year, the vessel owner or operator must develop a VMP with the EM 
hardware service provider following the VMP template available through 
the NMFS Alaska Region website.
    (i) The vessel owner or operator must sign and submit the VMP to 
NMFS each fishing year.
    (ii) NMFS may approve the VMP for the fishing year if it meets all 
the requirements specified in the VMP template available through the 
NMFS Alaska Region website.
    (iii) If the VMP does not meet all the requirements specified in 
the VMP template, NMFS will provide the vessel owner or operator the 
opportunity to submit a revised VMP that meets all the requirements 
specified in the VMP template.
    (iv) If NMFS does not approve the revised VMP, NMFS will issue an 
IAD to the vessel owner or operator that will explain the basis for the 
disapproval. The vessel owner or operator may file an administrative 
appeal under the administrative appeals procedures set out at 15 CFR 
part 906.
    (v) If, at any time, changes must be made to the VMP to improve the 
data collection of the EM system or address fishing operation changes, 
the vessel owner or operator must work with NMFS and the EM hardware 
service provider to amend the VMP. The vessel owner or operator must 
sign the updated VMP and submit those changes to NMFS. NMFS must 
approve the amended VMP prior to departing on the next fishing trip 
selected for EM coverage.
    (vi) The VMP will require information regarding:
    (A) Vessel and contact information;
    (B) Gear used;
    (C) EM hardware functionality requirements;
    (D) Requirements for meeting program objectives as specified in the 
Annual Deployment Plan;
    (E) List of potential solutions for hardware malfunctions;
    (F) Images of camera locations and camera views;
    (G) EM hardware service provider information;
    (H) Valid signatures from the EM hardware service provider and 
either the vessel owner or operator; and
    (I) Any other information required by the applicable VMP.
    (3) Responsibilities. To use an EM system under this section the 
vessel owner and operator must:
    (i) Make the vessel available for the installation of EM equipment 
by an EM hardware service provider;
    (ii) Provide access to the vessel's EM system and reasonable 
assistance to the EM hardware service provider;
    (iii) Maintain a copy of a NMFS-approved VMP onboard the vessel at 
all times when the vessel is directed fishing in a fishery subject to 
EM coverage;
    (iv) Comply with all elements of the VMP during fishing trips 
conducted under paragraph (g)(5) of this section;
    (v) Maintain the EM system, including by doing the following:
    (A) Ensure the EM system is functioning before departing on a 
fishing trip.
    (B) Ensure power is maintained to the EM system for the duration of 
a trawl EM category fishing trip;
    (C) Ensure the system is functioning for the entire fishing trip, 
camera views are unobstructed and clear in quality, and discards may be 
completely viewed, identified, and quantified; and
    (D) Ensure EM system components are not tampered with, disabled, 
destroyed, or operated or maintained improperly.
    (vi) Communicate catch information to the shoreside processor or 
stationary floating processor receiving catch through a NMFS approved 
system. The following information must be transmitted as outlined in 
the VMP:
    (A) Vessel name;
    (B) Identify which Management areas the vessel was operating in;
    (C) Most precise estimate available of tonnage aboard the vessel;
    (D) Estimated deckload size, if present;
    (E) Estimated time of arrival at shoreside processor or stationary 
floating processor; and
    (F) Information to meet other requirements of this part, if 
requested by NMFS.
    (4) EM coverage duration and duties. (i) A fishing trip in the 
trawl EM category may not begin until all previously harvested fish 
have been landed.
    (ii) At the end of the fishing trip in the trawl EM category, the 
vessel operator must follow the instructions in the VMP and submit the 
EM data and associated documentation identified in the VMP.
    (iii) The vessel operator must complete daily tests of equipment 
functionality as instructed in the vessel's VMP.
    (A) During a fishing trip in the trawl EM category, before each 
haul is retrieved, the vessel operator must verify all cameras are 
recording and all sensors and other required EM system components are 
functioning as instructed in the vessel's VMP.
    (1) If a malfunction is detected prior to retrieving the haul the 
vessel operator must attempt to correct the problem using the 
instructions in the vessel's VMP.
    (2) If the malfunction cannot be repaired at sea, the vessel 
operator must notify the EM hardware service provider of the 
malfunction at the end of the fishing trip. The malfunction must be 
repaired prior to departing on the next fishing trip in the trawl EM 
category.
    (B) [Reserved]
    (iv) Make the EM system and associated equipment available for 
inspection upon request by OLE, a NMFS-authorized officer, or other 
NMFS-authorized personnel.
    (5) ODDS requirements for trawl EM category catcher vessels in the 
partial coverage category. (i) EM trips. Prior to embarking on each 
fishing trip, the operator of a catcher vessel in the partial coverage 
trawl EM category with a NMFS-approved VMP must register the 
anticipated trip with ODDS. The owner or operator must specify the use 
of pelagic trawl gear to determine trawl EM category participation for 
the upcoming fishing trip.
    (ii) [Reserved]
* * * * *
0
9. Amend Sec.  679.52 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (b)(1)(iii)(A) and (b)(1)(iii) (B)(2), and 
(b)(3)(i) introductory text;
0
b. In paragraph (b)(11) introductory text, removing ``, fax,'';
0
c. Revising paragraphs (b)(11)(iv) and (b)(11)(vii) introductory text;
0
d. In paragraph (b)(11)(ix), removing the word ``fax'' and adding, in 
its place, the phrase ``electronic submission (email, or online through 
NMFS-designated electronic system),'';
0
e. In paragraph (b)(11)(x) introductory text, removing the phrase ``fax 
or email''

[[Page 7679]]

and adding, in its place, the phrase ``electronic submission (email, or 
online through NMFS-designated electronic system)'';
0
f. Revising paragraph (b)(11)(x)(B); and
0
g. Adding paragraphs (d) and (e).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  679.52   Observer provider permitting and responsibilities.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (iii) * * *
    (A) That all of the observer's in-season catch messages (data) 
between the observer and NMFS are submitted to the Observer Program as 
outlined in the current Observer Sampling Manual.
    (B) * * *
    (2) The observer does not at any time during his or her deployment 
travel through a location where an Observer Program employee is 
available for an in-person data review and the observer completes a 
phone, email, or other NMFS-specified method for mid-deployment data 
review, as described in the Observer Sampling Manual; and
* * * * *
    (3) * * *
    (i) An observer provider must develop, maintain, implement, and 
enforce a policy addressing observer conduct and behavior for their 
employees that serve as observers. The policy shall address the 
following behavior and conduct regarding:
* * * * *
    (11) * * *
    (iv) Observer deployment/logistics report. An accurate deployment/
logistics report must be submitted within 24 hours of the observer 
assignment, or daily by 4:30 p.m., Pacific time, each business day with 
regard to each observer. The deployment/logistics report must include 
the observer's name, cruise number, current vessel, shoreside 
processor, or stationary floating processor assignment and vessel/
processor code, embarkation date, and estimated or actual 
disembarkation dates.
* * * * *
    (vii) Observer provider contracts. Observer providers must submit 
to the Observer Program a completed and unaltered copy of each type of 
signed and valid contract (including all attachments, appendices, 
addendums, and exhibits incorporated into the contract) between the 
observer provider and those entities requiring observer services under 
Sec.  679.51(a)(2) and (b)(2), by February 1 of each year. Observer 
providers must also submit to the Observer Program upon request, a 
completed and unaltered copy of the current or most recent signed and 
valid contract (including all attachments, appendices, addendums, and 
exhibits incorporated into the contract and any agreements or policies 
with regard to observer compensation or salary levels) between the 
observer provider and the particular entity identified by the Observer 
Program or with specific observers. The copies must be submitted by 
electronic transmission (email or through an electronic system as 
designated by NMFS), or other method specified by NMFS within 5 
business days of the request for the contract at the address listed in 
Sec.  679.51(c)(3). Signed and valid contracts include the contracts an 
observer provider has with:
* * * * *
    (x) * * *
    (B) Within 72 hours after the observer provider determines that an 
observer violated the observer provider's conduct and behavior policy 
described at paragraph (b)(3)(i) of this section; these reports shall 
include the underlying facts, circumstances, and provider responses to 
the violation, including the steps taken to enforce the provider's 
conduct and behavior policy.
* * * * *
    (d) EM hardware service provider permit--(1) Permit. The Regional 
Administrator may issue a permit authorizing a person's participation 
as an EM hardware service provider for operations requiring EM system 
coverage per Sec.  679.51(f) and (g). Persons seeking to provide EM 
services under this section must obtain an EM hardware service provider 
permit from the NMFS Alaska Region.
    (2) EM hardware service provider. An applicant seeking an EM 
hardware service provider permit must submit a completed application to 
the Regional Administrator for review. This application can be found on 
the NMFS Alaska Region website.
    (3) Contents of application. An application for an EM hardware 
service provider permit must contain the following:
    (i) Contact information. (A) The permanent phone number and email 
address of the owner(s) of the EM hardware service provider.
    (B) Current physical location, business mailing address, business 
telephone, and business email address for each office of the EM 
hardware service provider.
    (ii) Hardware testing. Description of testing conducted to ensure 
that the EM hardware is capable of withstanding environmental 
conditions in the North Pacific Ocean. NMFS will provide specifications 
for EM hardware upon request.
    (iii) Data review. Provide a sample of EM data to NMFS that can be 
reviewed by NMFS EM data review software for compliance with program 
objectives as specified in Sec.  679.51(f) and (g).
    (iv) Conflict of interest. A statement signed under penalty of 
perjury from each owner or, if the owner is an entity, each board 
member and officer, that they have no conflict of interest as described 
in paragraph (c) of this section.
    (v) Criminal convictions and Federal contracts. A statement signed 
under penalty of perjury from each owner or, if the owner is an entity, 
each board member officer, if a corporation, describing:
    (A) Any criminal convictions; and
    (B) Any Federal contracts they have had and the performance rating 
they received for each such contract.
    (vi) Prior experience. A description of any prior experience the EM 
hardware service provider may have in placing individuals in remote 
field and/or marine work environments. This includes recruiting, 
hiring, deployment, working with fishing fleets, and operations in 
remote areas.
    (vii) Responsibilities and Duties. A description of the EM hardware 
service provider's ability to carry out the responsibilities and duties 
of an EM hardware service provider as set out under paragraph (e) of 
this section, and the arrangements to be used.
    (4) Application evaluation. NMFS staff will evaluate the 
completeness of the application, the application's consistency with 
needs and objectives of the EM program, and other relevant factors. 
NMFS will provide specifications for EM hardware upon request.
    (5) Agency determination on an application. NMFS will send the 
Agency's determination on the application to the EM hardware service 
provider. If an application is approved, NMFS will issue an EM hardware 
service provider permit to the applicant. If an application is denied, 
the reason for denial will be explained in the electronic 
determination.
    (6) Transferability. An EM hardware service provider permit is not 
transferable. To prevent a lapse in authority to provide EM hardware 
services, a provider that experiences a change in ownership that 
involves a new person may submit a new permit application prior to sale 
and ask to have

[[Page 7680]]

the application approved under this paragraph (a) prior to date of 
sale.
    (7) Expiration of EM hardware service provider permit--(i) Permit 
duration. An EM hardware service provider permit will expire after a 
period of 12 continuous months during which no EM services are provided 
to vessels in an EM category.
    (ii) Permit expiration. The Regional Administrator will provide a 
written initial administrative determination (IAD) of permit expiration 
to a provider if NMFS records indicate that the provider has not 
provided EM services to vessels in an EM category during a period of 12 
continuous months. A provider who receives an IAD of permit expiration 
may appeal the IAD under Sec.  679.43. A provider that appeals an IAD 
will be issued an extension of the expiration date of the permit until 
after the final resolution of the appeal.
    (8) Removal of permit. Performance of the EM hardware service 
provider will be assessed annually on the ability of the provider to 
meet program objectives as outlined in Sec.  679.51 and the Annual 
Deployment Plan. If the EM hardware service provider is unable to meet 
program objectives, the permit will be removed.
    (e) Responsibilities of EM hardware service providers. 
Responsibilities of EM hardware service providers are specified in 
section Sec.  679.51(f) and (g).
0
10. Add Sec. Sec.  679.56 and 679.57 to subpart E to read as follows:


Sec.  679.56   Full coverage trawl Electronic Monitoring fee.

    (a) Full coverage trawl Electronic Monitoring (EM) category fee--
(1) Responsibility. The owner of a catcher vessel in the full coverage 
trawl EM category must comply with the requirements of this section. 
Subsequent opting out of the trawl EM category does not affect the FFP 
permit holder's liability for paying the full coverage trawl EM 
category fee for any fishing year in which the vessel was approved to 
be in the full coverage trawl EM category and made pollock landings. 
Subsequent transfer of an AFA catcher vessel or AFA permit does not 
affect the catcher vessel owner's liability for non-compliance with 
this section.
    (2) Landings subject to the observer fee. The full coverage trawl 
EM fee is assessed on pollock landings by catcher vessels in the full 
coverage trawl EM category as specified in Sec.  679.51(g).
    (3) Fee collection. The owner of a catcher vessel (as identified 
under paragraph (a)(1) of this section) is responsible for paying the 
full coverage trawl EM fee for all pollock landings.
    (4) Payment--(i) Payment due date. The owner of a catcher vessel 
(as identified under paragraph (a)(1) of this section) must submit all 
full coverage trawl EM fee payments to NMFS no later than May 31 of the 
fishing year following the year in which the pollock landings occurred.
    (ii) Payment recipient and method. The owner of a catcher vessel 
(as identified under paragraph (a)(1) of this section) must make 
electronic payment to NMFS. Submit payment and related documents as 
instructed on the fee submission form. Payments must be made 
electronically through the NMFS Alaska Region website. Instructions for 
electronic payment will be made available on both the payment website 
and a fee liability summary letter mailed to each permit holder.
    (b) Full coverage standard ex-vessel value determination and use. 
NMFS will use the standard prices calculated for AFA cost recovery per 
Sec.  679.66(b).
    (c) Full coverage fee percentages--(1) Established percentages. The 
trawl EM fee percentage is the amount as determined by the factors and 
methodology described in paragraph (c)(2) of this section. These 
amounts will be announced by publication in the Federal Register in 
accordance with paragraph (c)(3) of this section.
    (2) Calculating fee percentage value. Each year NMFS will calculate 
and publish the trawl EM fee percentage for the full coverage trawl EM 
category catcher vessels according to the following factors and 
methodology:
    (i) Factors. NMFS will use the following factors to determine the 
fee percentages:
    (A) The catch to which the full coverage trawl EM fee will apply;
    (B) The ex-vessel value of that catch; and
    (C) The costs directly related to the EM data collection, EM data 
review, VMP approval, and trawl EM category data.
    (ii) Methodology. NMFS will use the following equations to 
determine the trawl EM fee percentage: 100 x DPC / V, where:
    (A) DPC equals the trawl EM category costs for the directed full 
coverage pollock fisheries for the most recent fiscal year (October 1 
through September 30) with any adjustments to the account from payments 
received in the previous year.
    (B) V equals the total of the standard ex-vessel value of the catch 
subject to the trawl EM fee liability for the current year.
    (iii) Program costs. Trawl EM category costs will be calculated 
only for catcher vessels that NMFS approves to be in the full coverage 
trawl EM category.
    (3) Publication--(i) General. NMFS will calculate and announce the 
trawl EM fee percentage in a Federal Register notice by December 1 of 
the year following the year in which the full coverage pollock landings 
were made. NMFS will calculate the trawl EM fee percentage based on the 
calculations described in paragraph (c)(2) of this section.
    (ii) Effective period. Effective period. NMFS will apply the 
calculated trawl EM fee percentage to all full coverage trawl EM 
category directed pollock landings made by vessels in the trawl EM 
category between January 1 and December 31 of the previous year.
    (4) Applicable percentage. A designated representative must use the 
AFA fee percentage applicable at the time a Bering Sea directed pollock 
landing is debited from an AFA pollock fishery allocation to calculate 
the AFA fee liability for any retroactive payments for that landing.


Sec.  679.57   Trawl EM incentive plan agreements.

    (a) Parties to a trawl EM Incentive Plan Agreement (TEM IPA). (1) A 
catcher vessel owner or operator must be a party to a TEM IPA to be 
approved for the trawl EM partial coverage category.
    (2) Once a party to a TEM IPA, a catcher vessel owner or operator 
cannot withdraw from the TEM IPA, and must comply with the terms of the 
TEM IPA for the duration of the fishing year.
    (b) Request for approval of a proposed TEM IPA. The TEM IPA 
representative must submit a proposed TEM IPA to NMFS. The proposed TEM 
IPA must contain the following information:
    (1) Affidavit. The TEM IPA must include an affidavit affirming that 
each party to the TEM IPA is subject to the same terms and conditions.
    (2) Name. Name of the TEM IPA.
    (3) Representative. The TEM IPA must include the name, telephone 
number, and email address of the TEM IPA representative who is 
responsible for submitting the proposed TEM IPA on behalf of the TEM 
IPA parties, any proposed amendments to the TEM IPA, and the annual 
report required under paragraph (f) of this section.
    (4) Incentive plan. The TEM IPA must contain provisions that 
address or contain the following:
    (i) Restrictions, penalties, or performance criteria that will 
limit changes in fishing behavior.
    (ii) Incentive measures to ensure that that catcher vessels do not 
retain or land pollock catch in excess of 300,000

[[Page 7681]]

pounds per fishing trip, on average in the GOA and an explanation of 
how the incentive(s) encourage vessel operators to limit landings in 
excess of 300,000 pounds of pollock per fishing trip in the GOA.
    (iii) Incentive measures to prevent catcher vessels from exceeding 
the MRAs established in Sec.  679.21(e) and how the incentives 
encourage vessel operators to avoid bycatch and avoid exceeding the 
maximum retainable amounts established in Sec.  679.20(e).
    (iv) Acknowledgment by the parties that NMFS will disclose to the 
public their vessels' performance under the TEM IPA and any 
restrictions, penalties, or performance criteria imposed under the TEM 
IPA by vessel name.
    (5) Compliance agreement. The TEM IPA must include a provision that 
all parties to the TEM IPA agree to comply with all provisions of the 
TEM IPA.
    (6) Signatures. The name and signature of the owner or operator for 
each vessel that is a party to the TEM IPA.
    (c) Deadline and duration--(1) Deadline for proposed TEM IPA. A 
proposed TEM IPA must be received by NMFS no later than 1700 hours, 
A.l.t., on December 1 of the year prior to the fishing year for which 
the TEM IPA is proposed to be effective.
    (2) Duration. Once approved, a TEM IPA is effective starting 
January 1 of the fishing year following the year in which NMFS approves 
the IPA, unless the TEM IPA is approved between January 1 and January 
19, in which case the TEM IPA is effective starting in the year in 
which it is approved. Once approved, a TEM IPA is effective until 
December 31 of the first year in which it is effective or until 
December 31 of the year in which the TEM IPA representative notifies 
NMFS in writing that the TEM IPA is no longer in effect, whichever is 
later. A TEM IPA may not expire mid-year. No party may leave a TEM IPA 
once it is approved, except as allowed under paragraph (d)(3) of this 
section.
    (d) NMFS review of a proposed TEM IPA--(1) Approval. A TEM IPA will 
be approved by NMFS if the TEM IPA meets the following requirements:
    (i) Complies with the submission requirements of paragraphs (b) and 
(c) of this section; and
    (ii) Contains the information required in paragraph (b) of this 
section.
    (2) Amendments to a TEM IPA. Amendments in writing to an approved 
TEM IPA may be submitted to NMFS at any time and will be reviewed under 
the requirements of paragraph (b) of this section. An amendment to an 
approved TEM IPA is effective when NMFS notifies the TEM IPA 
representative in writing of NMFS approval.
    (3) Disapproval. (i) NMFS will disapprove a proposed TEM IPA or a 
proposed amendment to a TEM IPA:
    (A) If the proposed TEM IPA fails to meet any of the requirements 
of paragraph (b) of this section; or
    (B) If a proposed amendment to a TEM IPA would cause the TEM IPA to 
no longer comply with the requirements of paragraph (b) of this 
section.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (4) Initial Administrative Determination (IAD). If NMFS identifies 
deficiencies in the proposed TEM IPA, NMFS will notify the applicant in 
writing that the proposed TEM IPA will not be approved. The TEM IPA 
representative will be provided one 30-day period to address, in 
writing, all deficiencies identified by NMFS. Additional information or 
a revised TEM IPA received by NMFS after the expiration of the 30-day 
period specified by NMFS will not be considered. NMFS will evaluate any 
additional information submitted by the TEM IPA representative within 
the 30-day period. If the Regional Administrator determines that the 
additional information addresses the deficiencies in the proposed TEM 
IPA, the Regional Administrator will approve the proposed TEM IPA under 
paragraph (d) of this section. However, if NMFS determines that the 
proposed TEM IPA does not comply with the requirements of paragraph (b) 
of this section, NMFS will issue an IAD providing the reasons for 
disapproving the proposed TEM IPA.
    (5) Appeal. A TEM IPA representative who receives an IAD 
disapproving a proposed TEM IPA may appeal under the procedures set 
forth at 15 CFR part 906. If the TEM IPA representative fails to timely 
file an appeal of the IAD pursuant to 15 CFR part 906, the IAD will 
become the final agency action. If the IAD is appealed and the final 
agency action approves the proposed TEM IPA, the TEM IPA will be 
effective as described in paragraph (c) of this section.
    (6) Pending approval. While appeal of an IAD disapproving a 
proposed TEM IPA is pending, proposed parties to the TEM IPA subject to 
the IAD, which are not currently parties to an approved TEM IPA, are 
not authorized to participate in trawl EM category.
    (e) Public release of a TEM IPA and performance metrics. Each 
fishing year NMFS will release to the public and publish on the NMFS 
Alaska Region website:
    (1) Approved TEM IPAs and Approval Memos;
    (2) List of parties to each approved TEM IPA; and
    (3) Names of vessels covered by each approved TEM IPA that:
    (i) On average, retain or land pollock catch in excess of 300,000 
pounds per fishing trip in the GOA; and
    (ii) Harvest bycatch in quantities that exceed MRAs.
    (iii) Vessels' performance under the TEM IPA and any restrictions, 
penalties, or performance criteria imposed under the TEM IPA by vessel 
name.
    (f) TEM IPA Annual Report. The representative of each approved TEM 
IPA must submit a written annual report to the Council at the address 
specified in Sec.  679.61(f). The Council will make the annual report 
available to the public.
    (1) Submission deadline. The TEM IPA Annual Report must be received 
by the Council no later than May 15 of the following fishing year.
    (2) Information requirements. The TEM IPA Annual Report must 
contain the following information:
    (i) A comprehensive description of the incentive measures in effect 
in the previous year;
    (ii) A description of how these incentive measures affected 
individual vessels;
    (iii) An evaluation of whether incentive measures were effective in 
limiting changes in vessel behavior including the effectiveness of:
    (A) Measures to ensure that trips by participating vessels, on 
average, do not retain or land pollock catch in excess of 300,000 
pounds per fishing trip in the GOA;
    (B) Measures that incentivize participating vessels to avoid 
exceeding MRAs established in Sec.  679.20(e) applicable to non-EM 
vessels;
    (C) Restrictions, penalties, or performance criteria that were 
imposed to prevent vessels from consistently exceeding catcher vessel 
harvest limit for pollock in the GOA or MRAs relative to non-EM vessels 
by vessel name (see Sec. Sec.  679.7(b)(2) and 679.20(e)); and
    (D) The frequency of vessels exceeding the catcher vessel harvest 
limit for pollock in the GOA and MRA limit relative to non-EM vessels 
(see Sec. Sec.  679.7(b)(2) and 679.20(e)).
    (iv) A description of any amendments to the TEM IPA that were 
approved by NMFS since the last annual report and the reasons that the 
amendments to the TEM IPA were requested.

[FR Doc. 2024-01952 Filed 2-2-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P